Paine Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 ...well, I didnt see ny topics on the boards about this, and since its one of the things Bush and Kerry clash about, I'd just like to know what everyone's opinions on the subject are.
Yupa Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 a perfect solution would be too complex to come near any of the poll choices
»Ducky Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 I always thought it was Liberal/conservative stereotypes that clashed. I also would like to see the arguements. I am pro-choice btw
Dr.Worthless Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 What are the pro-life arguments? Pro life arguement is pretty simple. At the moment of conception the embryo is human. Killing a human is murder.  As for my personal belief, I voted "Yes in extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances" ie rape, health conerns, etc. I believe that this is the view of probably 85% of the US/world.  Killing a baby because it doesn't fit in your lifestyle is wrong.
Paine Posted October 9, 2004 Author Report Posted October 9, 2004 Some... "pro-choice" arguments, with pro-life responses. An unborn child is not really a human being.Life begins at conception, when the father's sperm cell unites with the mother's ovum or egg cell to form one cell, a fertilised ovum. A baby is genetically complete at conception. The baby doesn't feel anything.An unborn baby feels pain. When aborted by hysterotomy (i.e. a caesarean section) he kicks, tries to breathe and may even cry. If he is pulled out by forceps he probably won't die until the surgeon tears off his head or pierces his abdomen. When he is sucked out by machine his end will be swifter. But he will still feel pain. A grown woman is more important and valuable than the unborn child.Not more, but equally. If you measure importance and value by age and size (as abortion does) you are practicing the same sort of "bigger is better" discrimination, with an extreme result, as some women complain men have been inflicting on them for centuries. We all want a society in which every human being has full equal protection of the law. Why discriminate against smaller and younger people? Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.Since abortion involves destroying the life of another human being, it can never be considered a matter of personal choice a woman makes for herself, but a life and death decision she enforces on another human being. Isn't it better to have safe legal abortions rather than to force women to resort to "back alley" abortionists?In India, prior to the legalization of abortion, there were about 3.9 million abortions each year. Going by these figures, the number of legal abortions between 1972 and 1983 should have been 42.9 million. However, during this period there were less than 3 million legal abortions indicating that, contrary to popular expectation, the law was not able to make even a dent in the illegal abortions. Isn't abortion necessary to control population?Abortion is an ineffective, expensive and inhumane method of attempting to control population. It is a violent and unacceptable means, just as war and famine are unacceptable means. In many countries, the abortion law was passed as a "health" measure and not as means of population control.
»Ducky Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 Those are not nearly as factual as stated though.  An unborn child is not really a human being.Life begins at conception, when the father's sperm cell unites with the mother's ovum or egg cell to form one cell, a fertilised ovum. A baby is genetically complete at conception.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. The baby doesn't feel anything.An unborn baby feels pain. When aborted by hysterotomy (i.e. a caesarean section) he kicks, tries to breathe and may even cry. If he is pulled out by forceps he probably won't die until the surgeon tears off his head or pierces his abdomen. When he is sucked out by machine his end will be swifter. But he will still feel pain.Certain procedures should be disqualified in the arguement, as there are alternatives. The time when the abortion takes place is also a factor. A grown woman is more important and valuable than the unborn child.Not more, but equally. If you measure importance and value by age and size (as abortion does) you are practicing the same sort of "bigger is better" discrimination, with an extreme result, as some women complain men have been inflicting on them for centuries. We all want a society in which every human being has full equal protection of the law. Why discriminate against smaller and younger people?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!@#$%^&*.Abortion is a personal decision between a woman and her doctor.Since abortion involves destroying the life of another human being, it can never be considered a matter of personal choice a woman makes for herself, but a life and death decision she enforces on another human being.You need first to evaluate when the fetus is a seperate "person" for this arguement to take place. Isn't it better to have safe legal abortions rather than to force women to resort to "back alley" abortionists?In India, prior to the legalization of abortion, there were about 3.9 million abortions each year. Going by these figures, the number of legal abortions between 1972 and 1983 should have been 42.9 million. However, during this period there were less than 3 million legal abortions indicating that, contrary to popular expectation, the law was not able to make even a dent in the illegal abortions.India is a seperate culture than ourselves, with numerous different cir!@#$%^&*stances and beliefs. I don't believe the arguement is valid.Isn't abortion necessary to control population?Abortion is an ineffective, expensive and inhumane method of attempting to control population. It is a violent and unacceptable means, just as war and famine are unacceptable means. In many countries, the abortion law was passed as a "health" measure and not as means of population control.I agree with that, it has little to do with population control.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 9, 2004 Report Posted October 9, 2004 The fact that you discount a life, ducky, is appauling. I really don't see how people justify murdering a human being because "Its dependant on the mother until birth.." So? Its still a life... 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.You can argue all you want, Its still a life, a human being. "independance" isn't a criteria for life.. If that's the case I suppose I can treat the blind/deaf parapalegic living over at the YMCA as a sub-human. How about folks in coma on life support.. guess they arent humans either.. Lol, But lets !@#$%^&* homosexuals over. The arguement is solid on the conservative side. Liberals who state one is more important than the other is silly.But this "equality" comming from conservatives is bull!@#$%^&*. While I see where you're coming from.. this is a social issue. One deals with the right to marry, the other deals with the right to live... Life/Death > Marriage Certificate...  You need first to evaluate when the fetus is a seperate "person" for this arguement to take place.See above.. how can it not be a person?  India is a seperate culture than ourselves, with numerous different cir!@#$%^&*stances and beliefs. I don't believe the arguement is valid. Statistics dont have anything to do with culture.. If you want to attack the statistics given it could easily be done, especially in that example... I agree with that, it has little to do with population control. Right.. It has to do with women justifying murder because the child is dependant on them.  I seriously don't understand that arguement.. When the child is born its dependant on the mother for the first year (arguably more..) So is it justifyable to kill them, then?
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 No, you cannot possibly deny the arguement that it isn't a life form until a certain stage of development.Abortion can take place before that moment when it is suited. Mold is a living life form, and when your bread gets moldy, you throw it away.MURDERER.It was tissue, it could not yet comprehend and "live"Am I !@#$%^&*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? Statistics dont have anything to do with cultureSo if I were to look at the statistics of Religious murder from say, palinstine compared to the US, there would be no difference?.. If you want to attack the statistics given it could easily be done, especially in that example...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. I seriously don't understand that arguement.. When the child is born its dependant on the mother for the first year (arguably more..) So is it justifyable to kill them, then?No the child is not dependant of them. How are they at all?
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Mold is a living life form, and when your bread gets moldy, you throw it away.MURDERER.Wow, so you're compairing a human being to mold.. gg  If you cannot respect and understand a womans choice to give up something of hers because she is not mature enough in handling, 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.. No the child is not dependant of them. How are they at all? Show me how a newborn can sustain life on its own and i'll give your arguement validity...
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Mold is a living life form, and when your bread gets moldy, you throw it away.MURDERER. 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.If you cannot respect and understand a womans choice to give up something of hers because she is not mature enough in handling, 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.No the child is not dependant of them. How are they at all? 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.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 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. Sorry, Genetically a human and mold are vastly different, if you're honestly trying to say that killing mold == killing a baby, I must fold out of the conversation, I cannot compete with ignorance. Read my above arguements, the life values are the same. WHEN IT IS ALIVE.Tissue, to me is not yet a person. So you'd be for abortion up until a certain point? When does an embryo qualify as a person? As early as 7 weeks a heart has developed and began beating.. At 3 months babies begin moving and have all their digestive organs in place.. If I had to comprimise on the subject, I'd say pre-7 weeks.. I did not say sustain life on it's own. I said it can be independant from that mother and still live. .. So the arguement you are presenting is since the child is dependant on another human being for life.. that it isn't yet a human.. correct?
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Sorry, Genetically a human and mold are vastly different, if you're honestly trying to say that killing mold == killing a baby, I must fold out of the conversation, I cannot compete with ignorance.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?  So you'd be for abortion up until a certain point? When does an embryo qualify as a person? As early as 7 weeks a heart has developed and began beating.. At 3 months babies begin moving and have all their digestive organs in place.. If I had to comprimise on the subject, I'd say pre-7 weeks..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. .. So the arguement you are presenting is since the child is dependant on another human being for life.. that it isn't yet a human.. correct?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 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?There is no line... When 2 dogs !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than dog. When two apes !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than ape. When 2 humans !@#$%^&*.. the embryo that is created can be nothing other than human. Genetics is your friend. The beginnings of a fetus are nothing more than tissue with "life" properties.SIMILAR TO THAT OF MOLD. Sorry guy.. The second a human sperm merges with a human egg.. that "tissue" has the genetic predisposition of Homo Sapien. When mold spores come into contact with a food source and begin to grow.. they have the genetic predisposition to be MOLD, not humans. Comparing mold to a human embryo because both are have "life properties" is !@#$%^&*anine. Its not as if every life form just "is" when it is created, and by pure luck of the dice roll it becomes a chosen organism... I believe that the mother has right, (Priority) to choose whether or not to care for a pre-life form because it is dependant upon her alone. So the Mother has the right to cancle a life because it doesn't fit her fancy.. I come into contact with people that fit into that catagory on a daily basis.. I wish I could cancle their lives...
MasterDrake Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Who says you have the right to say mold is better then a human being, I didn't realize you were the "creator". I'm pro choice I with ducky I would rather abort a child then let it grow with a horrible life.
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Sorry guy.. The second a human sperm merges with a human egg.. that "tissue" has the genetic predisposition of Homo Sapien. When mold spores come into contact with a food source and begin to grow.. they have the genetic predisposition to be MOLD, not humans. Comparing mold to a human embryo because both are have "life properties" is !@#$%^&*anine. Its not as if every life form just "is" when it is created, and by pure luck of the dice roll it becomes a chosen organism...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 !@#$%^&*anine.If I can solely stop the destruction of life without invading with another's free choice, I will. I don't kill insects purposely. If it happens, it happens. I appologize. Just as if I were to accidently kill a human being. If it was a pure accident, I would have no guilt.This is my choice. Not yours or anyone elses.And in my view, you cannot support killing one thing and not another on purpose. So the Mother has the right to cancle a life because it doesn't fit her fancy.. I come into contact with people that fit into that catagory on a daily basis.. I wish I could cancle their lives...Do you kill a spider when it bites you? Do you smash mosquito's when they do something that doesn't fit your fancy?I smell superiority complex
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Who says you have the right to say mold is better then a human being, I didn't realize you were the "creator"Do you kill a spider when it bites you? Do you smash mosquito's when they do something that doesn't fit your fancy?I smell superiority complex Wow, I guessing putting the value of a human life over that of a mosquito, or mold, makes me a wierdo..  Yes, you're right on the spot ducky.. I've got a superiority complex toward insects and fungus.. People who pick and choose the more "important" organisms who suit their own needs are !@#$%^&*anine.If I can solely stop the destruction of life without invading with another's free choice, I will. Unless that organism is unborn.. then its free choice doesn't matter.. eh ducky? Under your "more important organism ... !@#$%^&*anine" statement, you've just defeated your whole arguement FOR pro choice... Putting the mothers needs over a fetus's is by definition.. "picking which organism is more important.." GG    As per my statement before, I gracefully bow out of the conversation. Enjoy.
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 *shrug*, your choice. You quoted me and attempted to tell me of your opinions. I did just the same.
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Unless that organism is unborn.. then its free choice doesn't matter.. eh ducky?Under your "more important organism ... !@#$%^&*anine" statement, you've just defeated your whole arguement FOR pro choice... Putting the mothers needs over a fetus's is by definition.. "picking which organism is more important.."The organism does not yet comprehend free choice. You are !@#$%^&*uming its choice.By default, the choice then becomes the mothers. Remember we are still talking in the 7 preweek area before it is still developed.My arguement still stands.
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Ok.. I'll break my own rules and comment, possibly just this last time.. he organism does not yet comprehend free choice. You are !@#$%^&*uming its choice. And you believe that its the wrong !@#$%^&*umption to assume the organism would rather live than die.... Judging by your mold == human statement, I'll assume yes. But as I stated before If I had to compromise at all, I'd agree with your pre-7 week statement.
»Ducky Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 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.
talion Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 Unplanned children are not a benefit to society. In the case of a teenager/ young 20s woman getting pregnant and not getting an abortion, in most cases the parents of the woman are busted paying for this child's welfare (rather than their retirement), and the woman and her man - if he hasn't jetted - are paying for this child's welfare (Rather than their first house, saving for a planned child's education, whatever). If society is willing to turn a blind eye to conditions that create unwanted pregnancies, it should turn a blind eye to the abortions that are desired as a result. However, unlicensed abortion centers can be dangerous - thus the government has a responsibility to ensure that abortions are available. granting for this argument that the tissue is human once the egg is fertilzed, i'll concede you might be killing the next Washington, Trudeau or Churchill, but you might also be killing the next Hitler, Napoleon or Caesar. In any case, I don't give this particular angle much credit. the father and mother should have the only input into the decision, and what ducky said makes sense to me on that score. my problem with pro-lifers is that they ignore the fact that in all probability said child who's life they are saving, will likely just end up in the same predicament in 15-20 years after birth.
talion Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 quick thought: you are both making too much of ducky's comparison of human tissue to mold/dog/ape tissua and are also willfully taking it incorrectly. it was clear to me from the get go that he believes there is little difference between a freshly created possible-future-human, and a freshly created possible-future-mold.  im no biologist but i'd hazard a guess at saying that a dead mold cell and dead human skin cell aren't *that* different. the difference will be in the specialization that the skin cell has - tautness, sensitivity, insulation... whatever. i'd further guess that since the tissue - as i agree also with ducky on this point - of a possible-future-human hasn't yet developed to this point of specialization, the cells are more alike than you may think. ducky tbh mold may have been a bad example... but the dog/ape works just fine as subs-*BAD WORD*-ute (in this post too)
Dr.Worthless Posted October 10, 2004 Report Posted October 10, 2004 my problem with pro-lifers is that they ignore the fact that in all probability said child who's life they are saving, will likely just end up in the same predicament in 15-20 years after birth. So obviously the best solution is to make sure they never exist in the first place... <_<
Recommended Posts