Seriuosly though, i am completly againest abortion. The way I see it is, they have had the child, they have to look after it. But as we all know it does not work that way. I take the opinion that a person cannot make the decision on whether or not some else should be allowed to live.

This message has been edited by HOUND on January 03, 2001 at 03:28 PM

PS. I'm impressed with your double topic post... I'm pretty sure that's rare.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
HOUND, what gives you the right to decide what someone can do to their own body?

---

And what gives the pregnant person the right to kill a baby that can't fight for themselves. Kinda like cold blooded murder, except the baby never had a chance to loose their innocence.

------------------
If more people thought like me, the world would be a much better place. Either that or we would just kill each other, hmmm.....

after all, until it's born, it can't eat, breathe, or poop without using someone else's body to do it all.

i've got nothing else to say here, but if you wanna know what else i think, find that other thread and read it.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

It's times like these that validate the usefulness of moderators.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

Much of this issue is based on whether it's a baby after it's out, or after the egg is fertalized. Frankly that's one thing that will probably never be agreed upon. So not only is it impossible to decide whether it's morally correct, it's also kind of stupid to base an oppinion on morality itself.

Second, all eggs and sperm are pottentially babies. Should we have to save all of them? Why do they have less rights than a fetus? "One of them could discover the cure for cancer!"

Next, although the fetus is defenseless... so is the mother against a screwed up life! Does that baby have the right to suck 18 years out of HER? And if it does, then I don't see how it can be conssidered so harmless!

Anyway, my basic point is that for every case for, there's an equally good case against. Therefore we have to break it down to something more than a morality debate!

What is better for the country?

Just yesterday, I heard someone saying that abortion should be illegal. Another person asked, "What if she's raped?" He replied, "She should still have to have the baby, but the rapist should have is balls cut off in public, and then have his throught cut and be hung in public so his head rips off!"

Why is he opposed to killing a fetus (btw, that fetus could grow up to be a rapist... and with a victomized mother... chances are GOOD!), but would love to see a rapist die?
1) Because the rapist did something wrong
2) BECAUSE IT'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY!!
We don't have to waist taxes on keeping him alive in jail for 457 years!

So.......... I look at America today, and it's clear that we'd be better off with less people, and less babies, ESPECIALLY by mother who don't want them or can't take care of them. Therefore, because abortion helps the country, I think it should be allowed by any women who chooses it.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

I'll have to totally agree with your opinion though. By all means, it should be the mother's descision.

------------------
They have cats in the future?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyrino:
By all means, it should be the mother's descision.

---

Technically, according to the definition I don't agree with, she isn't a mother... just somebody with an affliction.

the bottom line:
either dont have sex, or use some fucking contraception (no pun intended)
people are just dumb.

------------------
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. The thing I hate most is that I didn't have a better idea.

another thing, in reply to "what gives you the right to dictate what happens to a woman / control her body", what gives THEM the right to dictate what happens to a human being that can't speak for itself?

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

I really hate discussing abortion, but I need to weigh in to tip the balances.

Most of these arguments assume a clean room/ emaculate conception. In ALMOST all cases (rape and incest are the obvious exception scenarios), some choices were made that allowed this to happen. The child did not ruin anybody's life. All the child/ fetus/ cell mass did was sit there and divide its cells. I can't find any fault on his part.

The only reason anyone says, "It's wrong to kill babies," or, "It's wrong to make choises about someones body," is so that THAT person can feel like they have a YES or NO oppion on abortion, and therefore are a complete person! People act like abortion is the biggest most important issue, when it's NOT. A bigger issue is, "What do with do with the kids we already got?" There's so much abuse and neglect going on that nobody want's to address! They're all in fucking denyal spitting out their fucking oppinion about abortion!

"LOOK AT ME! I'M INFORMED!"
SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!! How about you go fix the problems we've already got!

No? That's cause you never even WANTED to solve a problem! You just wanted to state your fucking oppinion, and then hop back on the couch and watch your fucking reruns!! AAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!

ahhhhh... sorry... that's just generalized a rant...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

"no a baby should have a chance for life, i wont kill it"

"no that burglar shouldnt have a chance for my vcr, yes i will kill them"

and as far as the choices that get made that result in accidental pregnancies, i think it's highly unreasonable to expect any human being to live without the pleasure of fulfilling, healthy sex just because that person doesn't want to have kids.

i also think that as long as the archaic attitude that a woman who is legally an adult yet is not married or over 30 years old is 'incapable' of making the decision to have a simple, safe, reversible surgical procedure to ensure that she doesn't have any unwanted pregnancies, abortion should and must remain legal.

so many people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. well, i like to tell these people who remind me of how evil abortion is and how it's murder that the american medical community could ensure that someone like me never, ever has one... by just accepting that as an adult person i want to surgically ensure that i won't get pregnant.

it may be unfair, unkind, immoral or even murder, but the reality of it is, those 'cells' in there impact a woman's life, physically, mentally, emotionally, economically. it may not choose to drastically change, or even ruin, anyone's life, but it still happens.

seriously, sometimes i wish i was male. but i'm not, so i'll just keep doing the best i can, and if anything goes wrong, i guess i'll do what i have to and live with it.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

I doubt I'll ever have to make the decision though because I love kids and I want loads and loads of them but only if they're mine.

That BITCH. Sleeping around, how did she think I wouldn't notice a black baby? Especially when she's swedish and I'm albino. Dammit.

Anyway, don't like abortion but you need it. There's some women who would make fucking terrible mothers and unfortunately some of them actually have children. See that's where you look like an ignorant spiv HOUND "I take the opinion that a person cannot make the decision on whether or not some[one] else should be allowed to live." If we're not allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy why should we be allowed to begin a pregnancy? Maybe we should let the government decide who can have children?

Women have abortion to thank for never having to give birth to your baby.
cheers

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by portrman:
And what gives the pregnant person the right to kill a baby that can't fight for themselves. Kinda like cold blooded murder, except the baby never had a chance to loose their innocence.

---

Far as I'm concerned, the moment the baby leaves the womb, no more aborts. But before then, sure!

I'm sorry, but it just isn't considered a human in my view until it pops. You have no right to be telling people what they can't do with their own bodies, btw. You can encourage them not to, but you sure as hell can't stop them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
choice isn't a matter of fault, it's a matter of a human being capable of reasonable and conscious thought deciding what is best for him/herself.

and as far as the choices that get made that result in accidental pregnancies, i think it's highly unreasonable to expect any human being to live without the pleasure of fulfilling, healthy sex just because that person doesn't want to have kids.

i also think that as long as the archaic attitude that a woman who is legally an adult yet is not married or over 30 years old is 'incapable' of making the decision to have a simple, safe, reversible surgical procedure to ensure that she doesn't have any unwanted pregnancies, abortion should and must remain legal.

so many people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too. well, i like to tell these people who remind me of how evil abortion is and how it's murder that the american medical community could ensure that someone like me never, ever has one... by just accepting that as an adult person i want to surgically ensure that i won't get pregnant.

it may be unfair, unkind, immoral or even murder, but the reality of it is, those 'cells' in there impact a woman's life, physically, mentally, emotionally, economically. it may not choose to drastically change, or even ruin, anyone's life, but it still happens.

seriously, sometimes i wish i was male. but i'm not, so i'll just keep doing the best i can, and if anything goes wrong, i guess i'll do what i have to and live with it.

---

Sorry, I'm not in a great mood... need beer.

this is totally logical, since it acts more like a parasite until then (not meaning anything bad). it is basically the size of a large bacteria at the time of an abortion anyway.

------------------
i used to be sniper3k. since then, the world has become a better place. music is the new killer.

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

------------------
Only you can prevent forum fires.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
Far as I'm concerned, the moment the baby leaves the womb, no more aborts. But before then, sure!

I'm sorry, but it just isn't considered a human in my view until it pops.

---

In my experience, I would say that children aren't really "human" until they're at least teenagers. Before the age of 11 or so, children are incapable of abstract, hypothetical thinking. Before the age of 5 or 6, children assume that everyone shares their experiences and that the world "revolves around them." When they are born, children cannot distinguish between what is a part of their body and what is not, and they do not understand the existence of objects or the fact that objects continue to exist even when they cannot see them.

So, obviously, a child is not really "human." If we should have no qualms about killing a fetus with a brain that is only partially developed compared to a live baby, why should we hesitate to kill a living child whose brain, after all, is just as undeveloped compared to an adult as the brain of the fetus is compared to a baby?

For that matter, in my view there are plenty of adults who do not classify as "human" either.

quote:

---

originally posted by DjSokol
in the torah (or the old testament for you strange christians), it clearly states that a child is not human or alive until it leaves the womb and gets out into the world.

---

OK, name the verse which says that. I don't believe that there is one. And even if it says that an unborn child is not human, that's not the same as saying that it is permissible to kill that child.

In my opinion, the question of abortion isn't a question of whether or not it's murder. The problem that I have with abortion is that it tells people that they no longer have to be responsible for their actions. If you have sex with someone, there is always the risk that pregnancy will result. You already decided to take that risk, and you shouldn't be allowed an easy out just because you wanted to take the risk without facing the consequences. Those of you who are supporting a woman's right to choose are forgetting the fact that she already _did_ make a choice when she had sex in the first place. What you're really supporting is not the right to choose, but the right to change that choice the moment you don't want to deal with the consequences.

i don't want kids, and i use birth control, but i'm sorry, total abstinence until i can't possibly get pregnant is just not an option. nor is abortion an 'easy out.' it almost never comes without serious emotional consequences. but in the unlikely event that i do some day accidentally get pregnant, i'll be glad the option is there, and i'll just live with the decision.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

It's going to be hard to convince me that there is anything right about abortion. I have a particular interest since it was certainly an option when I was born. My parents were in their 2nd year of engineering school. I haven't had the guts to ask my mom about this, but I have the feeling that it was considered for a while.

The question I bring to mind is this... if I were to find out that one of them wanted me aborted, and the other didn't, do I have a right to be angry? I think back and I can identify with the situation they were in, but it wasn't like they were aborting me... they would be aborting a cell mass that ended up being me.

I don't know.. This will always cloud my judgement on abortion since it's hitting awfully close to home. If I were with a girl who became pregnant (had a few scares), I don't think I could live with myself if she had an abortion. I would probably curl up and die. While this doesn't give me the right to force my belief on how other people treat their body and the forming cell mass within them, it certainly it a good explanation for my thoughts. That's why I don't kill abortion doctors, I don't try to pass legislation, and I try to mimilize my role in abortion debates. I will always think that a society that allows abortion is twisted. That's my opinion and you will never ever change it. Don't you dare trivialize my opinion (Snark).

Anyway, there's been a ton of other good posts (props to kuru, ask-man, and mikey-man), but I just thought of something to add...

In war we kill people. Usually this is done by dehumanizing the enemy or in some cases, dehumanizing ourselves. Is calling a fetus a "cell mass" dehumanising? Or is it more like when someone says to their pet, "Oh... you think this movie is funny tooo! Don't you! Oh... Are you tired? bla bla bla" People are OVERhumanizing a fetus when they call it a baby?

Oh, and good point ask-man! I got my nose broken at 3 when I fell from a latter. I didn't find out it was broken until I was 14, nor do I have any memory of it! I could have be slow tourtured and killed at 4, and it wouldn't have made the slightest difference to me.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
then i guess that means i'm capable of murder. really michael, be glad that you're male and you will never be faced with it.

---

And why wouldn't men be faced with that decision? If a man gets a woman pregnant, he has equal responsibility for the baby. The only difference is that the man has the option to just walk away and pretend he had nothing to do with it.

Now, if rather than trying to get laws on a woman's right to choose, we passed a law on a man's obligation to share responsibility, that would have a much better effect than anything else.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
i don't really have much else to say here, and my beliefs have already caused me enough grief today, so if anyone else would like to suggest anything about my character, you'll have to wait until tomorrow for a response.

---

Comments on your character? I believe what I posted said the following:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
Based on your posts here, I have a good deal of respect for the responsible attitude that you have towards sex... The fact is, there are a lot of people who are out there taking a lot more risks and doing a lot less to protect themselves than you are, kuru....

---

I'm sorry if it offend you for me to suggest that you make much more intelligent decisions than the majority of people in the world.

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithee
so, wait, when you remove a tumor, is that murder too? i mean, it is a "cell mass" that grows in size.

---

I believe I said that human beings are more than "cell masses" that grow in size because we have a future as well. the future of that tumor is that it will, almost definitely, kill the person. The future of the embryo, on the other hand, is that it will _become_ a person. There is a big difference there.

...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DuSTman
not that I believe in moral absolutes... There really isn't any such thing as a "right".

---

Well, why not? Some moral values are just about universal. For instance: "Thou shalt not kill DuSTman." Wouldn't you hope that that's an absolute statement, rather than something like "Thou shalt not kill DuSTman unless there are mitigating circumstances, such as if he manages to annoy you sufficiently."

quote:

---

Originally posted by DuSTman
b: Have the baby, keep it and have to change any dreams she may have had to be something more than just a mother.
c: Have the baby, have it adopted, and feel bad about it forever, knowing that the baby thinks it was unwanted.

---

First of all, there's nothing that says that a woman can't be anything "more than just a mother" just because she has a baby. Second of all, option c should read more like: "Have the baby, have it adopted, and know that your child is living in a much more loving and supportive environment than you could have provided, and has parents that love him or her very much and to whom he or she was definately _not_ unwanted."

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
isn't it just a bit unfair to expect a woman who doesn't want to have children to go through her entire reproductive years (in my case this could very well be the next thirty-five years) without sex because she might accidentally get pregnant?

---

Based on your posts here, I have a good deal of respect for the responsible attitude that you have towards sex, despite the fact that I disagree completely with your views on sex from a moral standpoint. The fact is, there are a lot of people who are out there taking a lot more risks and doing a lot less to protect themselves than you are, kuru, and they are the ones which are a lot more likely to get pregnant as a result.

However, the fact is that abortion is ending a human life. Calling an embryo a "cell mass" rather than a human being doesn't let you escape from that point; after all, all of us are really nothing more than "cell masses" too, albeit somewhat larger and more complex ones. But we are also much more than that; we also contain the past that has shaped us and the future that we might some day live. Cutting off that future is murder, no matter how you look at it. And that past is something that we have to live with, even if we make bad decisions. Abortion cuts of the future of one human being while smoothing over the past of another, and in the end it does no one any good.

quote:

---

The question I bring to mind is this... if I were to find out that one of them wanted me aborted, and the other didn't, do I have a right to be angry?

---

id say no, if this was the case, i know i wouldnt be angry. you cant know youre dead unless you have an afterlife. but how can you have an afterlife if you had no life.
and aside from that, the parent that voted pro for abortion was thinking about the responsibilities s/he had, not about how immoral it would be, or if it was murder, at least- the parent would think about responsibilities more than moralities and such.

i don't really have much else to say here, and my beliefs have already caused me enough grief today, so if anyone else would like to suggest anything about my character, you'll have to wait until tomorrow for a response.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

The main focus of this conversation seems to be it's "right" to kill the feotus, and if you consider it alive. I would like to, instead, focus on the lack of things that would make it "wrong" - not that I believe in moral absolutes.

There are many things that state that it is wrong to kill. The bible, the law of most countries and it is a basic facet of what I like to think of as our instinctive morality (I think that though much of our moral code is tought to us unconsciously, we have some basic instinct for teamwork), but I would note that to kill means to "take the life of.." and we should note that is, indeed, difficult to define what we mean by "life" exactly, and I think we all have different ideas on what it means, and this is what leads to this muddle over whether feotuses count.

The other main issue is the "rights" of the mother versus those of the growth. once again, I say that in a base, limited-only-by-physics world we have the right to do anything, therefore the growth has a right to live, but the mother also has the right to kill it if that is her decision. The right of one cannot be resolved without impinging upon the right of the other. This is why I hate discussions arout "rights". I don't think there's anything absolute enough at all to talk about in the way that people do when they talk about rights.

The decision from the mothers point of view is this:
a: Abort the baby, feel bad about the whole thing for a long time.
b: Have the baby, keep it and have to change any dreams she may have had to be something more than just a mother.
c: Have the baby, have it adopted, and feel bad about it forever, knowing that the baby thinks it was unwanted.

None of the options could exactly be termed attractive, but what you really think about when you talk about the right of the baby, I think, is the wasted potential there. There really isn't any such thing as a "right".

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
michael: regardless of how intelligent my decisions, the fact that it was pointed out that i'm capable of murder (you do consider abortion murder) doesn't exactly say good things about me.

---

Well, technically everyone is at least _capable_ of murder. I can think of several situations where I wouldn't hesitate to try to kill someone.

And as for the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal, I don't believe that I ever stated that it should be illegalized. What I did say was that people, individuals, should take responsibility for their own actions.

There are really two separate questions here: what people _actually_ do, and what they _should_ do. The former is what laws deal with, but as soon as you start talking about right and wrong, it's a moral question, not a legal one.

Legalizing abortion is similar to legalizing drugs, prostitution, or assisted suicide. In all these cases, people are going to do it anyways, so you're better off making it legal and thus safer. But saying that something should be legal is not the same as saying that it is the right thing to do.

even the dalai lama has recognized that there is a time to set aside the pacifist ways of the buddhist. the 'right' thing to do is a situational concept, and the only person who can make the 'right' decision is the one who is there, in that situation.

so i don't see abortion as a 'right or wrong' thing, i see it as a situation where a woman has to make a decision about what's right for her. so it sucks that a fetus has no choice, but the rights to some things only come with age. no decision is perfect or without consequence, but having them doesn't make it the wrong choice either.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

Hehe

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Well, why not? Some moral values are just about universal. For instance: "Thou shalt not kill DuSTman." Wouldn't you hope that that's an absolute statement, rather than something like "Thou shalt not kill DuSTman unless there are mitigating circumstances, such as if he manages to annoy you sufficiently."

---

Well, i'd rather people thought of it in terms of what would the consequences of their actions, and then make a decision on what to do based upon those consequences. I.E. "If thou kill DuSTman you will probably be locked in prison for 15 or so years, and make DuSTman's parents sad.", rather than just thinking "it would be wrong to kill DuSTman". True, most people would think that my death wouldn't be worth 15 years in jail, so there's going to be a trend against the killage of me, but if you hate me enough to take the consequences, then my all means, make with the stabbing.

quote:

---

First of all, there's nothing that says that a woman can't be anything "more than just a mother" just because she has a baby. Second of all, option c should read more like: "Have the baby, have it adopted, and know that your child is living in a much more loving and supportive environment than you could have provided, and has parents that love him or her very much and to whom he or she was definately _not_ unwanted."

---

True enough, women can be "more than just a mother" but I think it's highly unlikely that any mother would sacrifice the welfare of her children to improve her career, and children can be very demanding. Who can say what that woman would have achieved in her career in those 18 years if it wasn't for the mammoth drain on financial support and time that children constitutes. Having a child WILL hold back your career somewhat, you can believe that.

There are two people in a room. One of them has a gun. The decision on whether to shoot the other one is made entirely by the one with the gun. The other person might think "I don't want to be shot" and try to influence the decision of the man holding the gun. All in all though, the man should make a decision not based on this, but on the factors for and against executing hte other man. This is similar to the abortion scenario: Two beings, a feotus and a mother. The mother holds the gun, and therefore the primary logic from the mother should be on the factors that affect her. Yes, she'll feel sad about killing the baby, but I believe the logical choice would be to shoot unless you want a family and are in the appropriate situation in life.

I would like to see abortion be made the default choice in dealing with pregnancy and the focus should be instead "Why should i have this baby".

and id like to add to my previous satire(it was satire, if you didnt know..). another exception we should stop making is for women who will die if they have their baby. what right do we have to kill the baby? the mother shouldnt get to decide whether or not the baby lives or dies, its a life! i mean, so what if the mother dies, as long as the baby is around, its ok, right?

one more thing. some of you say that it is the mother responsibility to have the baby if she gets pregnant, because you shouldnt kill the baby. but to me, that sounds more like your trying to use the baby as a disciplinary tool (dont have sex, or youll have to take care of babies) instead of actually trying to think about the baby and its future...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
...your trying to use the baby as a disciplinary tool (dont have sex, or youll have to take care of babies) instead of actually trying to think about the baby and its future...

---

A rather ironic statement, considering that in terms of the baby and its future, abortion is killing the baby and ending that future no matter how you want to look at it.

And who says that there's no such thing as moral absolutes? Throughout history, up until relatively recently (the 1800s) when Humanism really came into play, it has been just about universally agreed on that there are absolutes of right and wrong. Everything in religion and philosophy from the Ten Commandments to the Categorical Imperative is based on that assumption.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
And who says that there's no such thing as moral absolutes?

---

Me.

as far as adoption goes, it's not without drawbacks. the woman would still have to be pregnant, to deal with all the physical effects of being pregnant, face whatever fallout this has with her family, and her job, take maternity leave from her job, go through labor, and even then when she gives the kid up, has to live with the increasing possibility that in 18 years or so that kid will be back.

as far as being 'more than just a mother', sad to say it, but in society today there is still the presumption that the kid always comes first. women with kids don't make it as far up the corporate ladder, they don't earn as much, their bonuses are smaller. unmarried women who have kids face even more of this, since many of the top level manegerial positions in companies are filled by men who are 50+ years old and are prone to stereotypes about mothers.

and you're wrong that the male faces it the same way the female does. it won't be automatically assumed of a man that he'll stop working long hours, that he'll take days off when the kid is sick, he won't lose promotions because of seniority lost on maternity leave. society tends to look at an unmarried father much less harshly than an unmarried mother. he doesn't go through any of the physical torment of pregnancy, there's no morning sickness, back pain, urinary tract infection, diabetes (which is more common than people realize), contractions, labor, ultrasound, amniocentisis... pretty much a guy's role in pregnancy ends at ejaculation.

and bottom line, the ultimate choice over whehter or not a woman has kids belongs to that woman and her alone. forcing her to bear the child if she truly does not want to is not going to make her a good mother, or make her happy about it. i think we've got enough evidence of that from the fact that there are women and girls who DIE every year because they are so strong in their resolve to not have a baby that they will do whatever it takes to have an abortion. there's a nice little memorial in washington d.c. for them. the inscription reads 'dedicated to all the women who died from unsafe and illegal abortions because they had no choice'

legality and illegality of abortion have no effect on whehter or not they happen, only on how safe they are for the woman. abortion in this country has been going on for quite some time, often done on kitchen tables by midwives. in other countries, like brazil, where abortion is illegal, the abortion rate is much, much higher than it is here, and more women die from them.

it's sad to me that people care so much about an embryo, a fetus, that they don't care what it will do to a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. it's sad to me that because of the constant debate, some women will go so far as to die because they see no other option. in a world in which a midwife with a crochet needle, a pair of tweezers and a kitchen table is preferable to motherhood for some, i guess it just seems to me like abortion should be kept legal, safe, and hopefully rare.

that's all.

------------------
kuru
'sex is one of the most beautiful and natural things that money can buy' - steve martin

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattimeoZ80:
i'd like to have the book, chapter, and verse please

---

can you read hebrew?

yea, it thought so

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
In my opinion, the question of abortion isn't a question of whether or not it's murder. The problem that I have with abortion is that it tells people that they no longer have to be responsible for their actions. If you have sex with someone, there is always the risk that pregnancy will result. You already decided to take that risk, and you shouldn't be allowed an easy out just because you wanted to take the risk without facing the consequences. Those of you who are supporting a woman's right to choose are forgetting the fact that she already _did_ make a choice when she had sex in the first place. What you're really supporting is not the right to choose, but the right to change that choice the moment you don't want to deal with the consequences.

---

You make a really good point. I understand there needs to be responsibility, but do you want to realy ruin somebody's life because their mother wasn't responsible?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DjSokol:
can you read hebrew?

---

That's what English translations are for. If you give the citation, it's easy enough to look up. But it sounds to me like you're just trying to avoid the challenge because you really don't know where (or if) it says that.

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

This message has been edited by MattimeoZ80 on January 06, 2001 at 12:58 PM

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

You can't abort after 6 months or soemthing around that length of time. A pregnant woman was involved in a car accident with a drunk driver. She was 4 months pregnant but she lost the baby because of her injuries. They tried to get the driver done for killing her baby put the drunk driver used the abortion law to say that it technically wasn't alive and so he didn't kill anything.

That fucking sucks.
cheers

But I guess abortion usually comes down to THAT woman's choice alone, and when someone else causes a misscarriage it's a little different...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

that's one mother-fucker of a load to be on someone's shoulders, to know that you hold the axe over potential life, and that no matter which way you go, someone will have a problem with it.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

And what gives the pregnant person the right to kill a baby that can't fight for themselves. Kinda like cold blooded murder, except the baby never had a chance to loose their innocence.[/B]

---

I read the forums all the time.. this is my first reply every because of such a strong issue..

Its things like this that define the "perfect" person.. views like this..

i cant believe i forgot my quote in my signature but this is what it would be ..

"Your best? Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom queen." -Sean Connery from 'The Rock'

------------------
Damnit, i wish flash was enabled for these signatures

I just wanted to comment on the argument that "It was the [people involved]'s choice to have sex in the first place." You people make it sound like it was a well-thought-out decision. Well very often that choice gets about as much thought as the time it takes to get horny.

Now I'm not trying to say they're not responsible for they're actions, but to say that the choices for both having sex and getting an abortion had the same amount ot thought put into them isn't right either.

But as far as legalizing it, I'm going to side with making it legal so that it can be done safely. I think that's really all the Pro-Choice people are asking. If you don't believe in abortion, fine. Don't get one, but don't impose your beliefs on someone else who wants to get one (unless you are the persons parents, but that's a different discussion). If someone feels strongly enough about having an abortion, she is going to get one, legal and safe or not.

But hey, I'm just a guy, so what the hell do I know? Right?

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

First of all, there are two issues here: 1) should abortion be legal, and 2) is abortion morally okay.

1) By all means, abortion should be legal. Whether or not it is considered "right", people are gonna get abortions, and I would much prefer those abortions to be done in a hospital environment than in a kitchen with a crochet needle, as kuru so eloquently put it.

2) From a moral standpoint, I have some difficulties with abortion. I have noticed that many people here argue like philosophers and academics about the issue, and make some assumptions that aren't necessarily correct. For example, Rhydant said that the adopted child grows up knowing that it is unwanted. This is an invalid assumption--I know two adopted girls--one is in college, and the other in middle-school. Both know that they were adopted, and neither care. They know that their adopted parents love them, and that is all that matters. So, while I'm not saying that some children feel unloved, I am saying that we can't make assumptions.

Now, since so many like to talk philosophy, let's take a philosophical favorite:
There is a certain violinist who is world-renown, but every time he plays, he exhausts himself to the point that the only way he can be kept alive is to hook him up medically to another person for nine months.

Now, this violinist is playing at a theater, and the deal is that when he is done, one person in the audience will be chosen at random to be hooked to him for nine months. If you are in the audience, and you are chosen, do you have the obligation to submit to this hook-up?

OK, now let's sweeten the pot. Let's say that if you wear a pair of blue earmuffs, for some reason your chance of getting picked is decreased by, say, 99\%. However, you really want to listen unhindered, so you forego the earmuffs despite the knowledge of what might happen. If you get chosen, are you obligated?

Now, here's the final bit--let's say that, for some reason, as soon as the violinist is done with the concert, and before the audience member is chosen, if you jump up and yell "You suck!" you are very nearly guaranteed to not get picked. Now, if you don't do that, and you are picked, are you obligated to keep the violinist alive? I believe the answer is yes.

We live in a world today where sex education is plentiful, even for the 14 year-olds having sex. If you use two forms of birth control at a time (for example, condom and the pill), your chance of getting pregnant is virtually nil. Add to that the fact that we now have an FDA-approved "morning after pill", which is also almost 100\% effective (it prevents the egg from being released, and prevents anything from sticking to the uterine wall--no egg, no stick, no baby), and there's no reason why a pregnancy can't be avoided, either before or after sex.

Now as for the discussion of whether or not a fetus is a human being, again many people here are stating their views without any real-life experience. My first son was born last Halloween, and I was very involved in the pregnancy. I was there for the ultrasounds, and I was there when the baby started to move of his own volition. While I see a gray area between the "conception" period to "quickening" (first real movement, around three months), I can't condone anything after that, since by that time the baby has all of its organs, and really only needs to grow some more.

In conclusion (finally! )--there are several reliable methods of birth control, and when used in conjunction give worse odds than winning the lottery of getting pregnant. If someone ignores these methods, barrels ahead, has unprotected sex, and gets pregnant, why shouldn't she retain responsibility for her actions, which could have easily been avoided, both before and after sex?

Finally, I still haven't heard a good argument against adoption. If the child is adopted, then that child is guaranteed of a home that contains love for that child (adoption requires dedication AND $$$cash$$$). As for the mother, life is tough sometimes, but it is still of her own making--if she finds out she wants the child, then that's her choice. If not, then her price for the mistake she made is paid after a year and a half.

Okay, I think I used up my Ũ.02 a long time ago. Bottom line--abortion should be legal, but it allows women to avoid the responsibility of their own actions.

------------------
--Jynx

We do not make software "releases" -- our software escapes, leaving a bloody trail of desginers and quality assurance people in it's wake...

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
Don't you dare trivialize my opinion (Snark).

---

Where the hell did that come from?

I'm sorry, I just have a real problem with anyone who tries to tell people what they can and cannot do beyond "Don't steal, murder, or rape".

Your opinion is just as valid as mine. All I'm saying is "do not try to force me to think like you by passing legislation and saying 'no one can do this because I said so'".

quote:

---

Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:

Where the hell did that come from?

I'm sorry, I just have a real problem with anyone who tries to tell people what they can and cannot do beyond "Don't steal, murder, or rape".

---

I appreciate your use of the shortened quote

Where that came from was you coming in and saying:

quote:

---

It's a pleasing surprise to find that someone has a valid opinion in these forums.

---

And, for your information, many of us on the pro-life/anti-abortion side view abortion as murder, and we have a right to believe that. I generally agree with your legislation point, yes, but it's up to contention in the harming others sense.

By the way, Jynx, I really liked your post, not because of my point of view, but it was good. <Snark> It's great that somebody used their brain before posting in this forum </Snark> j/k

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
[QUOTE]It's a pleasing surprise to find that someone has a valid opinion in these forums.

---

Should have taken that statement with a grain of salt. I said that joustingly, never intended for you to take it as an offensive remark. Generally I feel that all opinions are valid, I might just not agree with them. However, I've said it time and time again: "opinions" should not be made into laws. Innate morales, "no murdering, raping, stealing" should.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greasemonk:
I think a valid abortion depends on the situation.
If a woman gets raped and ends up pregnant then she has a choice to carry the child or get an abortion

---

--Wait a minute, what? Why should rape justify the murdering of a human being? If the problem with abortion really is that you're killing a human, then why is it that that human's life is more important than a woman's right to decide what to do with her body...but not if she got pregnant from a rape? What you're saying is that rape is enough of an incentive to outweigh the value of a human life. If you're truly against abortion on the premise that it's murder, surely even cases of rape cannot excuse this 'murder'.

since that's unrealistic and cruel to even ask, what happens to people who took every precaution they could and get pregnant by accident?

what then? should they be punished for the next 18 or 22 years?

you know, it's real easy for a guy to say 'hey, you chose to have sex, now you deal with it.' but i guess it would be, when it doesn't affect your body or your job and you can always choose to disappear.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
That's what English translations are for. If you give the citation, it's easy enough to look up. But it sounds to me like you're just trying to avoid the challenge because you really don't know where (or if) it says that.

---

you're right i dont know whre, but i know it does. at camp we had a rabbi come in and some girl asked him about it and he responded. rabbi's dont lie

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
you know, it's real easy for a guy to say 'hey, you chose to have sex, now you deal with it.' but i guess it would be, when it doesn't affect your body or your job and you can always choose to disappear.

---

I wouldn't.

Yes, I know that you could counter that I've never been in that situation, and I might decide to take the easy way out despite all my moral beliefs. However, I feel perfectly justified in saying that because I would not have sex with a girl who I did not care about so much that her own well-being was a part of my own.

Of course, if you have sex with people simply "recreationally" or in any situation other than a long-lasting relationship where you know that you mean a lot to each other, then you are indeed running the risk of being abandoned with the kid. That's a risk that you're taking.

Your main argument seems to be that forcing someone to have a child will ruin their life, and that any logical person would value their own life above that of an unborn child. And indeed, if your own life is the center of all your decisions, then certainly I can see why abortion would not seem like a real moral dilemma.

However, your life is _not_ your own. Your own welfare is _not_ the only concern that you should have. A relationship with someone else implies not only that you're trying to get something out of them, but that you have responsibility towards each other. And your participating in our society, similarly, implies that you have a responsibility towards the rest of humanity as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
I wouldn't.
However, your life is _not_ your own. Your own welfare is _not_ the only concern that you should have. A relationship with someone else implies not only that you're trying to get something out of them, but that you have responsibility towards each other. And your participating in our society, similarly, implies that you have a responsibility towards the rest of humanity as well.

---

-- wait a minute, your argument relies on the value you as an individual glean from inter-personal relationships. I guess what you're getting at is that your immediate well-being should not be your sole concern with regards to abortion because of the inherent responsibility implied within a relationship. But why does this hold true for a fetus? The fetus itself has no capacity to interact with you, or in any way affect you as a result of a consciuos (sp?) decision that it has made.

Also, what do you mean when you say participating in society means you have an obligation to humanity? That doesn't follow at all -- it just means you have an obligation to that society. Besides, abortions are not against the best interests of either society or humanity. Though wholesale murder on a vast scale is obviously counter-productive, selective murder isn't when it's limited to few situations, such as self-defense and abortion. In fact, given the limited resources of the earth and the devastating effect of over-population it could be argued that your obligations to humanity are to attempt a REDUCTION of populus, rather than protecting every individual life as if it were sacred. It is not in the interests of the society or of humanity to protect every single human life, and so your obligations to either have nothing to do with abortion being wrong.

Oh and Kuru, I dont know if you notice but its the year 2000. That wife stay at home stuff happened back in the 80s with the babyboomer. More and more (single) women are taking on high paying jobs these days. Look at Madonna for instance, she struts the single mother stuff like its a piece of cake. She even had 2 kids with 2 different men and goes around making demands now that she is all the sudden a "mature parent." Too bad all the single mothers out there dont have the kind of money she has but then again she is just an idiot most of the time now and acts like she doesnt know if she is coming or going.

Let's say I have a complete map of my DNA and my girlfriend's DNA. Following the same
steps that occur when sperm meets egg, I use these maps to sequence the DNA for a new human. I store this map on disk, knowing full well that someday there will be a machine capable of transcribing this code into chromosomes, inserting those chromosomes into an egg, and from there growing it into a human in the normal manner.

Now, if I destroy the disk containing that genetic information, is that murder? After all, that code sequence has the potential to turn into a human.

Here's my stance : no, it's not murder. And neither is abortion. There is a nine-month-long period while the raw genetic code turns into an organism capable of surviving on its own. I don't feel any worse about someone aborting a fetus than I do about clicking on "undo". It might be a waste of time and food, it might be emotionally traumatizing, it might make a lot of people uncomfortable, but those things do NOT make it murder.

This message has been edited by damien_s_lucifer on January 09, 2001 at 04:43 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
so what? people who never want kids should completely give up ever having sex while they're still in childbearing years?

---

There's an easy way around that problem. Repeat after me: "snip snip."

Enough said.

------------------
Old farts never die, they just get blown away.

quote:

---

Here's my stance : no, it's not murder. And neither is abortion. There is a nine-month-long period while the raw genetic code turns into an organism capable of surviving on its own. I don't feel any worse about someone aborting a fetus than I do about clicking on "undo". It might be a waste of time and food, it might be emotionally traumatizing, it might make a lot of people uncomfortable, but those things do NOT make it murder.[/B]

---

You are canceling the creation of Life itself. A flesh and blood organism. Computers are not organic, do not grow, poop, or have emotions...yet. What do you call the cancellation of an organism that is in growth?

what i find strange is how some people think that from the very first second that the sperm hits that egg its a lifeform. i mean when you scratch yourself your destroying more living cells than that! and you even get some mad catholics going on about how condoms are murder too. i mean i guess they dont realise that about 1 million other "lives" die just trying to get to the egg.

But really thats the big question aint it. when is "it" defined as a lifeform.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by diusFrenzy:
It is not in the interests of the society or of humanity to protect every single human life, and so your obligations to either have nothing to do with abortion being wrong.

---

Didn't you read the quotation that I was responding to? kuru said, essentially, that men are free to just abandon a girl as soon as it becomes clear that she's pregnant, and I responded that I would not do that to someone, and then explained why I wouldn't. My comments on people having an obligation to each other were in the context of that statement, not necessarily about abortion as a whole.

Another thing: several people here have said that a baby is not alive until it can "survive on its own" and imply that this point comes when the baby is born. However, a baby is still completely dependent on his or her parents for a long time after birth as well, so this definition for "alive" does not work.

I apologize for the crudeness... my way of dealing with an issue I find crude to begin with.

also, i never agreed to live in society. none of us did; we are all here by accident with no means of just leaving society behind. since a contract of resonpsibility must be entered into WILLINGLY, i have no contract of responsibility to anyone, or to society at large.

hellraiser: easier said than done. i haven't met a doctor yet who will do a tubal ligation on a healthy, single, 22 year old female. see, there's some bullshit idea in this country that every woman will eventually want to have kids, and that no woman can make that decision without a husband's consent.

let me know when this belief goes down the toilet, i'll be the first in line.

to whoever questioned the definition of 'survive on its own': to me, it means if the thing can survive without being PHYSICALLY ATTACHED to another being, it's a life. until then, it's a part of that other being's body.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

With regards to the baby being 'alive': I don't think this is really the issue. In a strictly biological sense the fetus is alive in the same manner that algae and other primitive undeveloped forms of life are 'alive'. Aborting (or killing, if you will) a fetus is not at all equivelant to terminating a person with a fully developed conscious (sp?), a sophisticated personality, social ties and an influence on the world around them. You're not ending a personality, harming numerous people who've interacted with this individual, or destroying a unique member of your society. To equate a 'potential human being' with a fully developed member of society only serves to degrade said members. That's not to say that abortion is legitimate, but it IS unreasonable to suggest that a fetus has the same moral value as a born human being, and that aborting a fetus is equivilant to murdering a born human.

Kuru: 'since a contract of resonpsibility must be entered into WILLINGLY, i have no contract of responsibility to anyone, or to society at large'. That's simply not the case. If that were true then nobody would have any obligation to follow any law. Besides, though you didn't explicitly agree to the social contract to which you are bound, you certainly did implicitly. Everybody has the right to leave society at any time they choose, and every minute they remain is a minute where they implicitly agree, by living in and reaping the benefits of their society, to the sociatal rules and structure.

If a few kids are playing a game, and another kid joins in and starts cheating, the first kids will object, and reasonably. Why? Because although the last kid did not explicitly state he would abide by the rules of the game, it was implied in his joining the game. In your staying in society, and reaping the benefits that society offers you, you implicitly agree to the responsibilities to that society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
Now we know that it's abortion up until it's 85\% out of the birthing canal

---

We base virginity on the vaginal plain... why not abortion...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

Heart transplant patients are chosen on a number of factors, but the big trump card is age. The reason for this is that an older person would not put that chance at life to as much use as somebody who has many years left to live. While not arguing that this is the same standard to be applied, it shows that society tends to put more worth on the potential of life, rather than the past usage of it.

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

this isn't a kindergarten recess play group dude, there literally is nowhere else to go.

i can't just choose to leave society, and even if i could choose that i want to, i lack the funds or a suitable place to go. i'm still a part of society by circumstance, not by choice. and i do not owe society the ruination of my own life so that their moral high horse won't get its nose out of joint.

abortion is legal. it doesn't seem that this is going to change any time in the near future. if it does, you better believe i will triple my effort to get a ligation. until then, i don't want to hear who i 'owe it to' to give up my dreams, my career, and the things i've spent a hell of a long time and even more money working toward if all the precuations i take fail me.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

Also, my previous post didn't state past accomplishments, nor did it mean to imply that past accomplishments were the reason that a born human's life has such value to other people. Rather, it's the inter-personal relationships that an individual forms that would be severely harmed by that individual's death, in adition to the fact that their death means something more than just the death of an organic substance, but a sophisticated life form with a personality (something a fetus, and indeed most simple life forms, lack), and individual thoughts, desires and interests is being terminated.

kuru:
are you suggesting that you have no obligations whatsoever to the society in which you live? No obligation to follow the law, to abide by the rules, to accept certain principles and live by them? Besides you benefit from society. Are you seriously suggesting that you deserve to reap the benefits of mutual protection, public facilities, public road, public assistance and all the other benefits you gain from co-existing in a mutually-beneficial environment with millions of other people without having some responsibility to go along with those benefits? If that were the case what responsibility do pro-lifers have to not harrass you and try to force you into not having an abortion.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting that you have an obligation to not have an abortion, I was simply disagreeing with your statement 'i have no contract of responsibility to anyone, or to society at large'

You say there's 'nowhere else to go', but so what? That's not society's problem. As long as you're a part of this society, you gain benefits and you accept responsibilities. Society has obligations to you providing that you accept your obligations to society... if you refuse to accept your obligations to society then the social contract breaks down and society no longer has any reason to provide for you.

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

This message has been edited by diusFrenzy on January 09, 2001 at 10:26 PM

Thae same is also true for a fetus. What's the real difference? The whole idea of living organisms is that they grow. They develop. They change over time. We are all still growing, just as the fetus is, for the simple fact that we are all alive. I used to be phyically dependent on your parents. Now I am only financially dependent on them. One day I will be financially independent too.

Life is a continuum. There are certainly some points that you can plot on that continuum (birth, graduation, whatever) but besides the two end points at conception and death, those points are all arbitrary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PersonGuy:
We base virginity on the vaginal plain... why not abortion...

---

so you agree with me now personguy?

------------------
"I didnt know cows had boobs, I just thought they had that big nutsack with all the wieners hanging off it" - Beavis

Metal/Electronic/Ambient etc..
< http://www.mp3.com/fatbitch >

quote:

---

Originally posted by diusFrenzy:
With regards to the baby being 'alive': I don't think this is really the issue. In a strictly biological sense the fetus is alive in the same manner that algae and other primitive undeveloped forms of life are 'alive'. Aborting (or killing, if you will) a fetus is not at all equivelant to terminating a person with a fully developed conscious (sp?), a sophisticated personality, social ties and an influence on the world around them. You're not ending a personality, harming numerous people who've interacted with this individual, or destroying a unique member of your society. To equate a 'potential human being' with a fully developed member of society only serves to degrade said members. That's not to say that abortion is legitimate, but it IS unreasonable to suggest that a fetus has the same moral value as a born human being, and that aborting a fetus is equivilant to murdering a born human.
[/B]

---

Wow from the sound of this and other posts it looks like everyone is starting to say that a fetus is actually an organ that is attached to a womans body and is detached after 9 months and becomes a human. Jeez what next?

quote:

---

Originally posted by fatbitch:
so you agree with me now personguy?

---

WARNING: DON'T TAKE TOO SERIOUSLY

I DON'T base virginity on that... remember the "points system?" My point is that if bible-thumpers can draw a very precise line THERE, then why is it such a gray area with abortion? I'm not trying to discuss the morality here. Whether it's RIGHT or WRONG or HUMANE or whatever... for the better of society not all pregnant women NEED to have children... not ALL babies NEED to become adults... and not ALL adults NEED to live to senior hood!

If I truely had it my way, retarted children would be put down, the death penalty would be used ALOT more, terminal patients would be removed from hospitals, and seniors with no perpose or will to live would be put down. It sounds cruel, but nature has always shown that a survial of the fittest system has always been most benifitial. Humans have reached a point of DEevloution, and that frightens me.

I'm getting off topic here, but my point is basically that alot of people died in wars saying that they would lay down their life for what they belived in. I would be HAPPY to die if it meant a greater benifit for everone else.

HERE'S THE POINT: all of the above odviously social unacceptable... so abortion is a nice start.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

------------------
Ah screw it.
-------------
ICEGAMING.COM

edit: typo

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street

This message has been edited by Observer on January 10, 2001 at 08:31 PM

PersonGuy:

quote:

---

If I truely had it my way, retarted children would be put down, the death penalty would be used ALOT more, terminal patients would be removed from hospitals, and seniors with no perpose or will to live would be put down

---

don't you think that sounds a little super-utopian. Akin to Hitler's master race?

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

the next time one of you gets in a snit and wants to talk about what i owe society, remember that it's really flippen easy to point fingers at someone else in a situation you can't ever be in.

i hate to be anti-male, since i side with guys most EVERY other time, but on this one, i just can't sit back and let guys point fingers at the bad, irresponsible girls who shoulder 90\% of the burden of unplanned, accidental pregnancy, regardless of what they choose to do.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by diusFrenzy:
Michael:
The difference is that a fetus has no personality, no conscious, no thought, and is nothing more than a simple (relatively) biological construct. What's the difference between a fetus and a sperm? If [b]potential life is what's really important, then surely we have to kill every male who's ever masturbated as they've commited mass murder on an unprecidented scale! In fact, every time you have sex, even if you impregnate the female, you're still brutually and shamelessly slaughtering millions of potential lives. If killing a fetus is to be equated with murder then surely killing sperm (or eggs) must also be murder. In fact, killing primitive sea algae is also brutual homicide since after all, that sea algae has the potential to one day evolve into a human being. How far back do you want to go?
[/B]

---

OMG, difference between a fetus and sperm??? A sperm and an egg create a fetus, which grow into a human being(at least for the last 2 million years I think). Any doctor will agree with you when you say a fetus comes from a sperm and an egg.

IMO I could really care less if someone has an abortion or not. Im not and dont feel like trying to be God and judge them because they are the ones making the choice and have to live with it.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spydir Web:
I just always found it so funny that Christians are always really anti-science...

---

Technically, there should be no conflict between religion and science, since there is no way that science can either prove or disprove the existence of God, or of anything else that is "supernatural." The only "anti-science" thing about christians is that, although we accept that science does a good job of modeling the physical world, we believe that science is completely blind to things in the world beyond what can be empirically measured.

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

this of course, lies in the belief of most religions that the universe was created at some point, which opposes the scientific position that the universe is infinite in both time and size.

mathematically if one could prove that the big bang happened, and that before this, the single point of matter that the universe sprang forth from did not exist, then something put it there, thus proving that there is a creator, a god.

however, if it is mathematically proven that the universe before the big bang has undergone cycles of expansion, contraction, and explosion for an infinite period of time, then that would prove that it was never created and a creator does not exist.

i don't reasonably expect anyone to figure out these equations anytime while i'm alive, but it would be one hell of an interesting news broadcast.

i digress.
the existence or non-existence of god aside, i still see abortion as a medical procedure and not murder. then again i also see euthanasia the same way (provided the person being euthanized made that decision).

i suppose i've become a little more firm in my stand that abortion must always remain one of the options since seeing a friend's life torn apart at age 19 when her 'birth mother' who gave her up for adoption decided to find her and see how she was doing.

here's a girl who went through 19 years of her life with a family, a mom, and a dad, happy and secure in the belief that she was wanted and loved. she never knew she was adopted. then one day the phone rings and it's the 'birth mother' calling. now this girl has to face the reality that the last 19 years have been an illusion created by the parents who adopted her, and that instead of her belief that her existence is the result of her mom and dad wanting a kid, she really came to be by accident, wasn't wanted by the two people who are biologically supposed to love her the most, and was given away by a woman inconsiderate enough to rip apart her entire life 19 years later out of the desire to now 'be a real mom.'

this kind of thing happens every day, in both directions. a woman who gave up a baby 18 or 20 years ago gets a knock on her door from the now-all-grown-up baby and has to deal with the fallout that this sudden appearance causes. maybe she's married now and has other kids and never told her husband about the time she gave up a baby. maybe even her parents never knew about it.
the 'happy reunions' are still far outnumbered by those that don't quite go so well.

the kids who were given up want to know why they were unwanted by women who have no answers to their questions. lives and families are uprooted and altered forever, and not necessarily for the better.

until we live in some utopia where every kid is wanted and loved by parents who can and want to take care of that kid, the option to not have the kid has to stay. it's disheartening, but no more so than finding out the last 18 years of your life have been an illusion.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

I mean, if God exists, then can't He just stick an aborted soul into another fetus? Better that a new soul gets parents that WANT it, right?

So what the fuck is wrong with abortion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
it's disheartening, but no more so than finding out the last 18 years of your life have been an illusion.

---

At least she got those 18 years, and she will have the next 60 years barring any acts of god or man. I'd be pretty happy.

Edit: Oh wait... or is it connected by it's umbilical cord to jesus... ?

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

This message has been edited by PersonGuy on January 11, 2001 at 06:36 PM

quote:

---

the next time one of you gets in a snit and wants to talk about what i owe society, remember that it's really flippen easy to point fingers at someone else in a situation you can't ever be in.

---

Kuru, I wasn't saying that you owe society keeping a child you don't want. I was disagreeing with your statement that you don't owe society anything at all. I'm sorry if you got upset over this, believe me that wasn't the intent at all.

greasemonk:

quote:

---

OMG, difference between a fetus and sperm??? A sperm and an egg create a fetus, which grow into a human being(at least for the last 2 million years I think). Any doctor will agree with you when you say a fetus comes from a sperm and an egg.

---

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

Consider this.. your mother could have aborted you.. you never would have had a chance.. what do ya think about that?

------------------
"Your best? Losers always whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom queen." -Sean Connery from 'The Rock'

Damnit, i wish flash was enabled for these signatures

'i' didn't exist yet, and never would have existed. the world would be markedly different, but not necessarily in a bad way.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by damien_s_lucifer:
it's interesting how closely the pro-life position is tied to religion, and more specifically Christianity.

I mean, if God exists, then can't He just stick an aborted soul into another fetus? Better that a new soul gets parents that WANT it, right?

---

You mean, reincarnation? That baby dies, so it soul just gets recycled? You seem to be a bit confused theologically here, damien - reincarnation is Hinduism, not Christianity.

Oh, and you certainly aren't improving your karma by killing that baby either...

As for the question of adopted children later coming back and causing trouble for their parents later on or vice versa, for those children, the fact that they're alive at all means that they should be glad they were not aborted. And as for the parents, certainly it is convenient to just cover over a mistake so that it won't come back to haunt you later down the road, but what is convenient is rarely the right thing to do.

oh, and hindu doesn't have an -ism at the end of it.

and karma, is a concept of buddha dharma.

and while we're at it, the sentient make choices, and the non-sentient are affected by them. not all choices have a 'right' answer, especially not the abortion/adoption/keep the kid one. in the end, the only 'right' choice comes down to the one that won't cause a person to hate who they see in the mirror every day.

life just is that way, and decisions like that get made every single day. life's hard. that there are no correct answers and no magic little book of moral absolutes makes it even harder. you do the best you can, you make the choices you can live with.

hell, even the dalai lama has picked up a rifle in defense of the freedom of tibet. he failed, against trained soldiers of china, bht he tried. even the buddha didn't believe in absolutes: all things, in moderation.

moral absolutes don't exist, and there are no right answers. only ones that are less wrong for the person being asked.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minstek2:
Consider this.. your mother could have aborted you.. you never would have had a chance.. what do ya think about that?

---

We already disscussed that... somewhere in page 2 I think...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mikey-man:

reincarnation is Hinduism, not Christianity.

---

So then it IS with God in heaven now!? What's so wrong with that! It's eternal pleasure is to float around in the fountain and suck alge of the sides with it's umbilical cord! Right!?
Please...

... and what is "please" short for? "Please kill me?" Hmmm...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

He's got to go to one or the other... and if he doesn't, then he's not a person, IS HE?

Such BS...

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

quote:

---

Originally posted by PersonGuy:
So then it IS with God in heaven now!? What's so wrong with that! It's eternal pleasure is to float around in the fountain and suck alge of the sides with it's umbilical cord! Right!?
Please...

... and what is "please" short for? "Please kill me?" Hmmm...

---

This sort of thing sound kind of strange coming from someone who, as a non-Christian, obvioulsy believes that the pyramids were built by aliens from the same planet as Elvis and that you can control your enemies by collecting their hair and fingernail clippings. I mean seriously, PersonGuy, and all you other atheists / agnostics - how can you believe in such total BS?

Or wait? Could it be that I failed to do my research, and that the truth is that just because you're not a Christian, it doesn't mean that you believe in aliens and witchcraft? Well, in that case I suppose I should have cleared up some of my MISCONCEPTIONS first so that I wouldn't sound like an absolute idiot insulting someone else's religion just because what I thought their religion was had NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to their actual beliefs.

Or, to put that more directly for those of you who for some reason can't understand irony or sarcasm, it's very easy to have a ludicrously incorrect view of someone else's religion and to then assume that their religion is BS when in fact your own conception of that religion is at fault, but speaking or writing based on those misconceptions only serves to illuminate your own ignorance and will do absolutely no good in supporting your own position.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
life just is that way, and decisions like that get made every single day. life's hard. that there are no correct answers and no magic little book of moral absolutes makes it even harder. you do the best you can, you make the choices you can live with.
...
moral absolutes don't exist, and there are no right answers. only ones that are less wrong for the person being asked.

---

First of all, let me say that if I was the sort of Christian fanatic that unfortunately seem to be found on the Internet in way too large numbers, seeing that that was your 666th post would have really freaked me out... but instead I'll just look at it as some sort of coincidence.

Secondly, I can see how you could view the world as a place where there is no such thing as right or wrong and where the only "good" decisions are the ones that do the least harm, but I don't see who in their right mind would want to live in such a world. Myself, I live in a world where people are all good, although sometimes misguided, where I don't have to worry about someone else turning on me simply because it's more "convenient" for them to do so, and where there are indeed concrete answers to ethical questions. And I don't see who in their right mind would give up my world in favor of yours.

OK, here's a concept for all of you: throughout your entire lives in school, while you thought you were being educated in a mostly unbiased, non-religious manner, you were actually being indoctrinated in the official religion of schools and government, the religion of science, a religion known as secular humanism. It is a view of the world that, since it is based on modern science, is, just like the scientific worldview as a whole, based on a set of flawed assumptions. For those of you who believe that science will one day provide a complete understanding of the world, you are only deluding yourselves. As science and mathematics come closer and closer to modeling things like the Big Bang or black holes or quantum mechanics, they are in fact only coming closer and closer to revealing the inadequacy of those approaches and the meaninglessness of a worldview build around science. The world cannot tell you who you are or why your are here or what you should do with your life; it can only provide diversions which distract you from asking these questions and keep you from worrying.

It's a well know fact humans "need" answers. They see a door that says "Employees Only" and they want to know what's behind the door. They're told "don't open this box" and they wonder "what's in the box that I shouldn't see?" and they open it. It's like the B rated horror movies. Dumb guy "protects" ugly girl by walking into a house where some monster is waiting to eat them both. Like watching those shows on TLC. You don't want to see the surgeon pulling the knife out of the guy's skull, and you even say "oh my god that's sick!" but you still watch it (I admit I've done this a couple times, but it's rare). We *want and need* answers. Some people find answers in science, other's in a God or multiple Gods. And people are brought up on this. It's like, most Christian families give birth to Christian babies, just like most Buddhist families give birth to Buddhist babies. The kid doesn't choice, it's literally forced on them. It's actually rare people leave these upbrings on their own personal choice. So... ask yourself this. If I was born as a Jew or as a Hindu (spelling?) or a Muslum (god I need to learn to spell ), would I be as true to my religion and religious believes as I am with my Christian? Same goes for Atheists and everyone one else. Like many things, believes are rarely a personal thing, they're majority learned.

Yeah... has nothing to do with the original topic, but still. Quit fighting over the whole religious thing and just go at each other's juggular over the abortion crap... Believe what you want and let others do the same.

Ok, I might get flamed for all that but who cares... I'm finished with the thread now, how about you?

------------------
Spydir Web - spydirweb@techie.com
Core Arctic - < http://welcome.to/CoreArctic/ >

quote:

---

Well, in that case I suppose I should have cleared up some of my MISCONCEPTIONS first so that I wouldn't sound like an absolute idiot insulting someone else's religion just because what I thought their religion was had NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER to their actual beliefs.

---

Whoa... sorry, I didn't mean to hit a nerve there... or mabey I did...

You've gotta understand that I was raised as a Christian, and even though I've renounced those beliefs, I still remember what I was taught! There's SO many different forms of Christianity, that MY previous veiw would have suggestest obserd ideas from my previous statements. However, YOUR veiw might see what happens to the "baby" TOTALLY different... in which case I'm NOT insulting YOU.

The fact that you were so offended shows that either you're either upset at yourself for holding on to something so obserd, or that you MISS UNDERSTOOD and thought I was specifically talking about YOU.

So educate me. In your belief, what happens when people die? And is there a special case for the "baby". I'm truely interested.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

a lot of people see the holes in christianity, and feel the same way about it as a physicist might feel about the flat earth society. the point is that some people have a hard time accepting people who believe in things they find stupid. i have to admit, i do this too, but i do my best to keep it at a minimum...so umm...yeah....

quote:

---

Originally posted by PersonGuy:
So educate me. In your belief, what happens when people die? And is there a special case for the "baby". I'm truely interested.

---

Believe it or not, life after death isn't something that I've really thought about much; I'm really not afraid of dying, which means that the question doesn't have the same urgency or fear behind it for me that it does for some people.

I've always felt that humans have a "soul": something eternal, some part of us that isn't physical or constrained to the physical world, and that part of us will live on when we die. Thus, after death you will not necessarily have a body just like you did while you were alive, and since a person's soul is essentially the same throughout their life, there's no reason to assume that a baby would be any different from an adult.

Of course, this is just my view, and may not be identical to the views of Christians as a whole...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michael:
I've always felt that humans have a "soul": something eternal, some part of us that isn't physical or constrained to the physical world, and that part of us will live on when we die.

---

Well, strangely enough we agree on that... but I just don't buy into the "live on" part. The body is our window into the world, and once that's gone you just a non-thinking entity in a void. The same goes for animals and plants and micro-ogranizims and anything else that "lives". But to me, that's why it doesn't matter... when your dead you don't know.

But that's just the way I see it. And normally I WOULD assume that a Christian belives in life after death. If you don't, then my previous comments weren't directed at you.

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

because for 9 months that woman still has to deal with whatever ramifications her boss and family will throw at her. if she's under 18, she may even get kicked out of school, out of her house, the list goes on.

then, she gives the kid away. but thanks to this being the 'feel good and find your roots' society that it is, she has to spend every day from that moment on wondering when that kid is going to come back and throw a massive wrench into the new life she's started.

say she's now married, 18 years later, and has a couple kids with her husband. do you think that it's some fairy tale where this doesn't affect her new family?

what if she's never told her husband because, hey, it was a mistake in her past she was tryin to move on from. how's he going to feel?

is he going to leave her?

what's the kid going to think when he/she sees the other kids? the ones she KEPT?
is it going to ruin that kid's life, seeing that while he/she wasn't wanted, other kids were?

oh, and as far as living in a world in where there really are no absolute "right" and absolute "wrong", and decisions get made on the 'least harm' principle.

and i rather like it that way.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

------------------
Estuan interius
ira vehementi

This is Aaron from < www.dotcult.com: > Posted Jan 16, 2001:

As I've stated before, I never get involved in political issues. I have my own views on certain things, but I don't feel that I as a human being have the right to make another human being live their life a certain way. I can present logic and give suggestions, but creating policy for another person is something that I do not believe that I have the right to do.

However, in keeping in the spirit of proclaiming my opinions whenever possible, I will now voice my thoughts on the much debated topic of abortion.

I'm not pro-life, nor am I pro-choice. As I stated, I don't dictate policies for others. However, I would not kill a fetus that I helped to create, nor would I suggest for anyone else to do it.

While I do not get involved in politics, I do observe arguments from time to time. And I must say, the abortion issue has produced some of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen...on both sides of the issue. And now, I present a few of my personal favorites.

What if the woman is raped?

Oh yes, the infamous "create a victim to get an upper hand in the argument" tactic. This argumentative tactic is very similar to the common use of babies and children as sympathy crutches. And you know how I feel about the whole "What about the children?" thing.

Rape is a cruel crime to commit. I sympathize with any victims of rape, along with the physical and emotional damage that it causes. Sometimes, rapists impregnate the women that they victimize. Some pro-choice people often use this situation as a basis for their cause. They say "The woman didn't choose to make this child, why should she have to keep it?", or something to that effect. That type of statement may work on the more sympathetic individual, but for a logical person...it holds no water.

I seriously wonder how many of the people who use this argument have actually known a person that admitted to being a byproduct of rape. I would be willing to say that 99\% of them have not had a person who confided in them that they were a child of a rapist.

I personally know a couple of people that were brought here as a result of this crime. They're doing well in life, and find the very notion of their mother killing them because of something they had no control over preposterous. They are very thankful for the lives that they were blessed with, and happy that their mothers did not take "the easy way out." The same goes for the mothers; they love their children and abhor the thought of their lives being taken away because they weren't "planned."

There are two reasons for even using this as an argument. The first is that people who are skillful in argumentative speech know that "evil" words such as rape send out an immediate reaction to emotional people. Emotions block out logic, which makes the flaws in the argument harder to discern. It's simple word association play; rape = victim, victim = innocent, innocent = guilt free. I commend those who use this sneeaky tactic on their manipulation skills.

The second reason is that this gets rid of the whole "lack of responsibility" argument. Logic would dictate that punishing others for your mistakes makes no sense, so situations that absolve a person from responsibility are brought into play. However, this does not mask the fact that the vast majority of abortions are in fact cause by a blatant avoidance of responsibility. Trying to justify the legality of abortions as a whole by quoting something that is clearly a "special case" would be the same as legalizing murder as a whole because "sometimes it's done in self defense."

Justifying abortion based on something that is clearly a minute aspect of the issue (I wouldn't be surprised if the statistics put the rape factor at around 1\% or so) is ridiculous. It's almost as bad as the argument of:

What if the woman cannot take care of the child?

The problem with this argument is that no one can predict the future. Most people that use this argument portray the future child similarly to the children shown on television in those "save the children" ads. Right. More of that sentimental imagery crap. Sure, taking care of a child would be added responsibility and work, but there are very, very few cases in which it would be impossible for the mother to adequately provide for the child's well being with nothing more than a little added work and effort.

Similar to the whole rape issue, the percentage of those that legitimately would be forced to lead their future child into a tortured life of absolute poverty and destitution is very, very minute. This argument is most often used to mask the real argument in this case (most of the time), which could be summed up like this:

"What if a mother is too lazy and irresponsible to take care of the child and would sacrifice another's life just to make hers easier?"

What about birth defects, incurable diseases, etc.?

Ah, the ancient argument of "mercy killings." This is one of the better arguments, as logic is harder to put into play in this instance. It took me a little while to come up with a "witty retort" for this one, let me tell you! But finally, after much deliberation, I answered that statement with this:

If it is legal to "mercifully kill" a baby, why is it that I would be prosecuted for "mercifully killing" a deformed person or a retarded person? It's the same thing, after all - one person is making it their decision to end another's life. And comparing abortion to "pulling the plug" on a chronically ill person is like comparing apples and oranges. Extending a person's natural life is completely different to cutting one's natural life short.

Abortion should be illegal! It's morally wrong!

(This paragraph has been edited because it didn't sound the way I want it to. I admit my mistakes!)Most of the morals that we go by today are a result of religion; taking religion out of the equation means that your actions are based completely on the will of the majority. If you're not religious, then the things you view as "moral" are only aspects of the thinking of the majority that you have percieved from a young age. "Human laws" are often changed, as was evidenced by the fact that things that are viewed as "morally wrong" now were accepted before, and vice versa. Non-religious "morals" change with the wind.

If people try to use the Bible as a basis for outlawing abortion, they're still in error. While the Bible states that murder is wrong and states that a fetus' life is worth just as much as a grown person's, it also states that Christians are not to be involved in politics. That's right; by picketing, protesting, and rallying "the cause", you're voiding out your allegiance to the Bible and cannot use it as a basis. Sorry.

The problem with any pro-abortion argument is that you're justifying the taking away of human life. The problem with anti-abortion arguments is that it is hard to come up with a common basis as to why it is wrong to take away a human life in the first place.

I personally think that people should stop coming up with stupid excuses for their reasoning and say what they really feel. Could you imagine the rallies if people stated what was really on their mind? I could see the signs now:

"I don't like abortion so you should change the law to fit my feelings!"

"I like abortion so you should change the law to fit my feelings!"

It all basically comes down to making your own personal choices and dealing with the consequences of that choice. I'm against the abortion of any future child of mine and I don't like seeing that the practice is regularly performed, but I'm not going to try to govern your lives because of my decision.

a choice that resides squarely as the private medical decisions between a woman and her doctor.

it's not a legal issue. it's not a religious issue. it's definitely not for someone else to decide.

and as far as 'what if' this and 'what if that' the only 'what if' that should matter at all is 'what if this woman does not want to have a kid?'

the answer is between her and her doctor. the decision is entirely up to her.

it's not 'the easy way out' that it's professed to be, either. in reality, nobody knows until they have been there just how 'not easy' it is.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

no need for her to worry bout no feckin morals noW!!!!

sorry just pissed off at everyones opinions.
I just like to be right thats all

------------------
Random giberish etc. etc.

This message has been edited by diusFrenzy on January 18, 2001 at 06:29 PM

If you look at it from the point of view of someone who believes that the fetus is a life (it is interesting to note that this is not a contention of morality it is a contention of fact -- your personal beliefs have nothing to do with this...rather, the argument is over the empirical truth, rather than the ethically best course of action) then your argument sounds like this:

quote:

---

You can't tell me what to do. You have no right to tell me who i may and may not brutally butcher. I have every right to slaughter an innocent, defenseless child. The decision is entirely up to me.

---

If it were the case, then you're basically saying murder should be legal (at least, after a determination of fact, not personal belief, that the fetus is a life).

Note: I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm merely stating that the reasons for abortion are not (at least, IMHO) that it has anything to do with a woman's right to privacy.

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

First, let's look at some classic defining principals. Some consider fetuses human because of DNA. In this case, there should be a funeral for every menstrual period, and the prisons would be overpopulated by teenage boys and prostitutes. DNA is obviously out. Next, let's look at heartbeat. No, many animals we eat have hearts. Breathing? Almost everything breathes, even plants. A soul? With all the different religions, who can say when ensoulment occurs, if at all? Humanoid forms? Monkeys, chimps, and orangutangs have similar qualities. What makes it not wrong to put a chimp to sleep, but wrong to kill a human?

Sentience. The ability to think, feel, and have emotions. Creativity. Individuality. All of the wonderful aspects of our minds that let us be self aware. THIS is what we hold sacred. This is what must not be destroyed.

Now we put forth the mortal question. When does a fetus achieve sentience? Our self awareness is a result of our developed brain. Fetuses in the third trimester have brains developed enough to survive, albeit in plastic cubicles. Some experiments have detected brainwaves in developed fetuses.

My view is based on the facts I have presented, facts that I took great pains to research for a project a while ago. Humanity is defined by our thought, and this cannot occur until the third trimester. Abortions before should be allowed, but not after.

(Many thanks to Carl Sagan for a lot of the info I used here)

The difference between an Embryo and sperm/eggs is that an Embryo is a set of non-differentiated stem cells that are rapidly dividing in order to build up a cell mass that can be formed into the basics of a multi-cellular organism (blastozome? my biology book is packed up). The Embryo has a complete set of DNA (all 23 pairs), whereas sperm/eggs have only 23 singlets.

From the sentience side, we've talked before about life seeming to start sometime in the first 5 years. Most thought up until around 9 months after it breaches the vaginal plane and is allowed to join our club of humans is based on instinct and growing muscles, bone mass, and brain mass. So, the birthing is just a transition between being fed through a tube attached to a belly button and being fed through vitamin enriched sweat from the nipples.

Nothing physiologically changes during the birth except the methods that the kid gets their nutrients and air... and they can be wrapped in a blankie.

------------------
There may be blood on the tracks, but the trains are on time.

just remove it.

make like it's a c-section or whatever, and yank it out. if it breathes, it's an independent life. if it doesn't, it's not an independent life.

my argument, to the asshole who suggested i slaughter babies, hinges on the belief that until a fetus can BREATHE AIR, it's not a person. if it can't eat (ok so by this i mean suck down some form of milk and digest it) adn breathe air, then it's not an independent life form.

it's actually not even a parasite, because a parasite actually /digests/ whatever it sucks out of another being, instead of the nutrients being absorbed directly into the blood.

the earliest i've heard of a premie being able to survive is around 12 weeks early.

3 months. so up to the third trimester, you have a fetus.

another point: before the third trimester a spontaneous abortion (that's the medical term for it) is called a miscarriage. somewhere around the 28th week, it becomes a premature delivery, and in the event that the baby is not alive, it's called a still birth.

that's where i get my opinion of where life begins. no, i don't think it's right to go pulling out a fully formed 35 week baby that could breathe and eat by his feet and jamming a pair of scissors into his brain.

i also don't think it's wrong for someone who's 8 or 12 weeks pregnant to decide to terminate that pregnancy.

after all, everyone who is in opposition to abortion of an embryo or fetus from the standpoint that 'life begins at conception' must then ALSO be against such things as invitro fertilization. because invitro involves the fertilization of up to 24 collected eggs with collected sperm, a period of gestation within a petri dish, and the eventual selection of the strongest of those embryos to implant. maybe 4 or 5 of them get implanted, the other 20 are terminated. out of the 4 or 5 that get implanted, in rare cases all of them reach maturity. in most cases, all but one will die, and in few instances, all of them will die.

so answer me this. what's worse: a woman who wants no kids and can take care of no kids terminating a single pregnancy, or a woman who does want a child and has paid a fortune to create them selectively terminating 23 embryos?

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost

quote:

---

Originally posted by askheaves:
Nothing physiologically changes during the birth except the methods that the kid gets their nutrients and air... and they can be wrapped in a blankie.

---

Exactly. The physiological change happens when the brain develops. Before that, it is incapable of thought. Afterward, it is human.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kuru:
BLA BLA BLA

---

You go girl!!
/me claps

------------------
<P:\>erson\Guy.exe -PersonGuy *pERSONgUY.cfg
< http://www.personguy.com >