Partial birth abortion? [Archive] - Whistle Stopper Political Forums

Captain America

12-09-2003, 02:33 PM

"that women should be deciding this. Why do you think women should have some sort of monopoly on deciding the abortion issue?"

I can see a trade-off. (Well, not really...but for the sake of argument.)

Here is the trade off. If a woman can be given the sole decision on whether or not she wants to be a mother, then the man be also allowed to turn his back and walk away from being a father as well.

Here is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

If a woman wants to abort, the man has no say. If the woman wants to have a child, and the man does not, again, he has no say. The court will mandate that he financially support the child regardless of whether he wants to or not. A bit one-sided don't you agree?

Normally, this is the corner that, when feminist pro-choicers get backed into, they reply "Well, he should have kept his dick in his pants!!" I point out that we are talking consentual sex here and not rape. So don't even go there.

To want equal rights only when it is convenient is not having equal rights at all. Equal rights means just that. Equal rights.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Simon666

12-09-2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
What the heck does this mean???
Use it only "when necessary" but it is "not to be...otherwise regulated???" This seems contradictory.
Women should be thoroughly advised not to do so but it should not be placed in the law I believe. I could live wwith it however if something like that were placed in the law. In Belgium abortion is no longer allowed after the 11th week, except if the mother's health is in danger I believe. An acceptable legilsation.

Voice Of Reason

12-10-2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Simon666
To be only used when absolutely necessary. Not to be forbidden or otherwise regulated.

And who decides when it is needed?

Voice Of Reason

12-10-2003, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Chiasmus
Understandable when the woman's life is in danger; otherwise, to be avoided at all costs.

I agree, but how do you stop it from being abused?

Voice Of Reason

12-10-2003, 12:11 AM

Partial Birth abortion performed for any other reason but to save the liefe of the mother is murder and should be prosecuted as such.........

davidcasey2

12-10-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
has it occured to you that very few women are deciding this matter?

Does something seem wrong here to anyone else but me?
It doesn't seem wrong to me - we're not talking about the woman; the question is whether or not the "fetus" is indeed a human being, and at what point life actually begins. The greater question is the issue of murder vs. simply disposing of a pile of tissue, not whether the mom is comfortable or not.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:12 AM

He clearly stated partial birth abortion which is murder. Under partial birth abortion babies which have a chance of life out of the womb are slaughtered.

Duo_Maxwell

12-10-2003, 01:13 AM

davidcasey2: How many sexes does our species have?

Who is carrying the baby?

And why are there so few women deciding this decision. At VERY, VERY least it should be 50-50.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:17 AM

Why do you keep whining about women having a fair shake?

Duo_Maxwell

12-10-2003, 02:03 AM

why are you aganist having 50% of the human race having a fair share of their decisions?

Sounds like discrimination to me!

Having an opinion that those who will be carrying the fetus, those who make up 1/2 of our race, and those who have suffered more under discrimination, should be making this decision hand in hand with the other 50% is WHINNING?

Right....

cpwill

12-10-2003, 02:36 AM

have we tried to keep any women out of the discussion, duo?

:rolleyes: its a woman's right to have a voice in this matter just as it is a man's right to have a voice in this matter.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 03:18 AM

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
why are you aganist having 50% of the human race having a fair share of their decisions?

Sounds like discrimination to me!

Having an opinion that those who will be carrying the fetus, those who make up 1/2 of our race, and those who have suffered more under discrimination, should be making this decision hand in hand with the other 50% is WHINNING?

Right....
I never said I was against any of that.

Blueangel

12-10-2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Captain America
Here is the trade off. If a woman can be given the sole decision on whether or not she wants to be a mother, then the man be also allowed to turn his back and walk away from being a father as well.

Here is a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

If a woman wants to abort, the man has no say. If the woman wants to have a child, and the man does not, again, he has no say. The court will mandate that he financially support the child regardless of whether he wants to or not. A bit one-sided don't you agree?

Normally, this is the corner that, when feminist pro-choicers get backed into, they reply "Well, he should have kept his dick in his pants!!" I point out that we are talking consentual sex here and not rape. So don't even go there.

To want equal rights only when it is convenient is not having equal rights at all. Equal rights means just that. Equal rights.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's precisely narrow minded opinions like this that make me steer away from debates on abortion.

It doesn't neccessarily follow that a pro-choicer is a feminist.
I am the former but not the latter.

As a mature woman who has always wanted to become a parent, but was actively denied this by my husband...please try and see beyond the male perspective.
I was also deceived by a former fiance who wished me to become pregnant before I was ready to. I wanted to be married and financially stable before embarking into parenthood, so he substituted my contraception for a placebo.
I've also had a boyfriend who said he wanted to have kids with me and concealed the fact that he'd had a vascectomy.

There are millions of women in my postition, which only proves that the final decision on parenthood at conception, is equal.

Anyway...none of this or the previous few posts, addresses this subject of the thread.

cpwill

12-10-2003, 06:22 AM

BA: i think you are both arguing the exact same thing from different sides.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
Partial Birth abortion performed for any other rteason but to save the liefe of the mother is murder and should be prosecuted as such.........
Originally posted by ScummyD
He clearly stated partial birth abortion which is murder. Under partial birth abortion babies which have a chance of life out of the womb are slaughtered.
It is not murder as the fetus is not yet a person and they do not have a chance of life out of the womb. And the mother's life is not sufficient to me, this needs to be expanded to the mother's health as well.

Captain America

12-10-2003, 11:01 AM

My ex-wife aborted our child without even consulting with me on it. She simply stated that she was going to do it and that was that. It WOULD have been our second child. There was nothing I could do about it.

I think the man should have some equal say especially if he is the husband as well as the father. But he doesn't. That sucks.

But we're working hard to change it. Today, in our courts, more and more men are getting custody of their children after divorce and just 25 years ago, that was almost unheard of.

I have full custody of my children. She pays child support (or supposed to anyways:rolleyes: ) I can understand the frustrations of women over deadbeat and worthless fathers. I also have experienced that only it was the mother.

But more times than not, it is the immature male that screws things up and makes it look bad on us guys who do try to do the right thing.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 12:33 PM

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
It is not murder as the fetus is not yet a person and they do not have a chance of life out of the womb.
You could not be more wrong Simon and you are clearly ill informed about partial birth abortion. Your statement is 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

The FACT is many babies have reasonable chances of life out of the womb if they were to be birthed unstead of slaughtered. This is undebatable fact!

"Today, I do not wish to debate the politics of partial-birth abortion. Instead, I will discuss the disturbing facts of partial-birth abortion as a surgical procedure -- a surgical procedure --to my mind -- that should and must be banned.

The fact is that partial-birth abortion is a repulsive procedure. It begins by turning the living fetus around, partially pulling it out of the uterus feet first, and then thrusting the base of its skull deeply with 8-inch long scissors.

Next the scissors are forcibly opened in the skull of the fetus to create a hole large enough to evacuate the brain and the contents of the head. Once the skull is collapsed, the now dead infant is pulled from the uterus through the birth canal.

This procedure is most commonly performed in the second trimester of pregnancy, from 20 to 27 weeks. How developed is a fetus during this period? The survival rate for premature babies born at 23 weeks is 30 to 50 percent.

For those born at 24 to 25 weeks the survival rate is between 60 percent and 90 percent.

Experts also believe that an infant begins to feel pain at this stage and, in fact, does feel horrific pain during the forcible manipulations and the stabbing of the skull during partial-birth abortion.

It is hard to imagine a more grotesque or tortuous treatment of what -- if delivered fully without first being killed -- would have a fighting chance to become a healthy human being." ---Bill Frist surgeon senator

Simon666

12-10-2003, 12:50 PM

Survival chances are not fantastic and even if it lives chances it would have a normal life are low. Anesthesia is a possible measure if you are really concerned they feel pain.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 12:53 PM

Prenatal development (http://www.cbctrust.com/PRENATAL.html)

The earliest point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb is about 23-24 weeks of gestation (500 grams or approximately 1 lb). At this stage the chance of survival is low and the risk of impairment and disability quite serious. Scientists say that this point of survivability will not change in the foreseeable future, because the fetal lung does not mature sufficiently to permit even mechanically-assisted breathing before week 23-24 of gestation.

Also take a look at this curve (http://www.cbctrust.com/preg.GIF). Very interesting.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
Survival chances are not fantastic and even if it lives chances it would have a normal life are low.
"The survival rate for premature babies born at 23 weeks is 30 to 50 percent.

For those born at 24 to 25 weeks the survival rate is between 60 percent and 90 percent. "

Did you read this??? :confused: "Survival chances are not fantastic"??? Are you for real??? How can you honestly make such a statement???

Anesthesia is a possible measure if you are really concerned they feel pain.

And now you suggest drugging the baby so you can slaughter it without pain??? You truly are evil.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Simon666

The earliest point at which a fetus can possibly survive outside the womb is about 23-24 weeks of gestation (500 grams or approximately 1 lb).

I just posted this info. It supports my position, not yours!

NOTE: "CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB..." Hence it is murder.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:05 PM

Again you do a quick search and post some random links that neither prove anything of relevance nor support your position.

For all we know you could have fabricated those links.

You can not disprove my contentions here. You are wrong.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
"The survival rate for premature babies born at 23 weeks is 30 to 50 percent. For those born at 24 to 25 weeks the survival rate is between 60 percent and 90 percent. "

Did you read this??? :confused: "Survival chances are not fantastic"??? Are you for real??? How can you honestly make such a statement??? And now you suggest drugging the baby so you can slaughter it without pain??? You truly are evil.
Frist is a politician who is opposed to it, his data are questionable. I wonder where he got them from, I'm not willing to take him on his word, as a matter of fact, I'm unwilling to take any politician on his word without looking into it.

Even if he is right, 30-50 percent is not fantastic, and 60 to 90 percent neither as I fear for serious deformations or handicaps if the percentage is not above 99%.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I just posted this info. It supports my position, not yours!

NOTE: "CAN SURVIVE OUTSIDE THE WOMB..." Hence it is murder.
If the procedure is most commonly performed in the second trimester of pregnancy, from 20 to 27 weeks, it implies in half of those cases, from 20-23,5 weeks it does not stand a chance, and from 23,5-27 weeks a chance that is barely worth mentioning or not worth taking for the risk of having a child living like a plant instead of a human.
Originally posted by ScummyD
Again you do a quick search and post some random links that neither prove anything of relevance nor support your position. For all we know you could have fabricated those links. You can not disprove my contentions here. You are wrong.
It happens to be a more scientific and neutral site which can not be said from what you did, posting a link from a site that claim that is the representation of what a politician against the procedure claims. gee, I wonder which is more trustworthy. :rolleyes:

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:43 PM

I think this debate is over.I presented facts from a reputable source, you posted an unknown link, despite which, even supported my case.

You obviously have nothing worth while to present to support your case that partial birth abortion is not murder. You have even admitted that survival is possible if the baby is birthed instead of slaughtered. You lose, again. :D

Sometimes I think you have an unresistable compulsion to disagree with me even when you can not disprove my assertions and your argument is divorced from reality and unsubstantiated.

It is okay to agree with me sometimes.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
Frist is a politician who is opposed to it, his data are questionable. I wonder where he got them from, I'm not willing to take him on his word, as a matter of fact, I'm unwilling to take any politician on his word without looking into it.
Well Frist's statement I posted was inline with the info in the link your provided. So now are you questioning your own "source" as well???

Even if he is right, 30-50 percent is not fantastic, and 60 to 90 percent neither as I fear for serious deformations or handicaps if the percentage is not above 99%.
The fact is, and you can not dispute it, that some babies could live outside the womb if birthed and not slaughtered in the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion. This is undeniable, give it up! You lost.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
It happens to be a more scientific and neutral site which can not be said from what you did, posting a link from a site that claim that is the representation of what a politician against the procedure claims. gee, I wonder which is more trustworthy. :rolleyes:
You are wrong again. I never posted a link.

Anyway, they essentially said the same thing! Babies can live... blah, blah, blah. Hello, did you even bother reading the link you posted or did you just frantically jump on it because you finally found what you thought to be a rebuttal to my assertion. You are wrong again.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 02:00 PM

Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 34,000 member American Society of Anesthesiologists, testified before Congress that the anesthesia normally given to the mother does not kill the child ahead of time and it provides little or no pain relief to the child.

As she is being aborted, the child normally fights for life. One of Dr. Haskell's nurses, Barbara Shafer described a common sight: "the baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of the head, and baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp."

This is not murder???

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 02:04 PM

According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, babies born at 23 weeks have a 23% chance of survival. At 24 weeks, the number rises to 34%. At 25 weeks, the survival rate is 54% With each further week, the survival rate soars. Why is this important? It means the baby doesn't have to be killed to free the mother from an unwanted pregnancy. The baby can be delivered live and allowed to live.

This is not murder???

Captain America

12-10-2003, 02:44 PM

It is not murder as the fetus is not yet a person and they do not have a chance of life out of the womb.

Hey Simon, (hypothetically) go punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, for the sole purpose of killing the "fetus" and cause her to lose that baby and tell me what the police charge you with.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I think this debate is over.I presented facts from a reputable source, you posted an unknown link, despite which, even supported my case. You obviously have nothing worth while to present to support your case that partial birth abortion is not murder. You have even admitted that survival is possible if the baby is birthed instead of slaughtered. You lose, again. :D Sometimes I think you have an unresistable compulsion to disagree with me even when you can not disprove my assertions and your argument is divorced from reality and unsubstantiated.
Only in some cases is survival possible. In half the cases it isn't as it seems. Though I do admit it is possible at all what I did not expect. There is nothing wrong with my source except that you can't notice any bias and therefore it seems suspect to you, and even more because it doesn't say what you want it to say. Go look for other sources, most state that in the twenty fourth week four out of ten babies will live if born at that moment, which is lower than what your politician seemed to claim.
Originally posted by ScummyD
Dr. Norig Ellison, president of the 34,000 member American Society of Anesthesiologists, testified before Congress that the anesthesia normally given to the mother does not kill the child ahead of time and it provides little or no pain relief to the child.
Nice to know, I didn't claim that, I advocate if you're really concerned about the fetus feeling pain to anesthise the fetus also apart.
Originally posted by ScummyD
As she is being aborted, the child normally fights for life. One of Dr. Haskell's nurses, Barbara Shafer described a common sight: "the baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors through the back of the head, and baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high-powered suction tube into the opening and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp." This is not murder???
Nope.
Originally posted by ScummyD
According to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, babies born at 23 weeks have a 23% chance of survival. At 24 weeks, the number rises to 34%. At 25 weeks, the survival rate is 54% With each further week, the survival rate soars. Why is this important? It means the baby doesn't have to be killed to free the mother from an unwanted pregnancy. The baby can be delivered live and allowed to live.
See the chances are a bit different and less than 50% from 20-24 weeks? And if you want to take care of a handicaped baby or spend a gigantic medical bill keeping it alive for some weeks more, go ahead.
Originally posted by Captain America
Hey Simon, (hypothetically) go punch a pregnant lady in the stomach, for the sole purpose of killing the "fetus" and cause her to lose that baby and tell me what the police charge you with.
Murder is unlawful killing. Killing a fetus by punching the mother is not exactly legal. Women having abortions is.

cpwill

12-10-2003, 04:20 PM

ahh.....so....the mother is allowed to kill it but somone else isn't?

that's illogical; there is only a crime if it's a certain type of perpetrator?

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
There is nothing wrong with my source except that you can't notice any bias and therefore it seems suspect to you, and even more because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
Simon your "source," as I have already mentioned, supports my case not yours!

Go look for other sources, most state that in the twenty fourth week four out of ten babies will live if born at that moment, which is lower than what your politician seemed to claim.
Your dodging. You claimed partial birth abortion is not murder.

And you even say yourself some babies can live. I have presented evidence that in fact some babies could live if not killed.

You said partial birth abortion "is not murder as the fetus is not yet a person and they do not have a chance of life out of the womb." I have clearly shown that statement to be false. You have offered nothing else. You have nothing, again.

See the chances are a bit different and less than 50% from 20-24 weeks? And if you want to take care of a handicaped baby or spend a gigantic medical bill keeping it alive for some weeks more, go ahead.
That is not the point. You are dodging again.

The point is the baby would be alive and therefore partial birth abortion is murder.

Murder is unlawful killing. Killing a fetus by punching the mother is not exactly legal. Women having abortions is.
I was waiting for this ridiculous argument to surface from the murky depths. If you have to reduce your argument to semantical manners such as this you are obviously bankrupt. Nice try, better luck next time.

Game over.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 04:54 PM

1. It is illegal to deprive an innocent person of life.

2. Partial birth abortion deprives and innocent person of life. __________________________________________________ _
3. Partial birth abortion should be illegal.

A person being defined as a human able to sustain life outside the mother's womb.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by cpwill
ahh.....so....the mother is allowed to kill it but somone else isn't? that's illogical; there is only a crime if it's a certain type of perpetrator?
The mother has the decision on what happens with her body and whatever lives in it. May appear illogical to you, but not to me.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
1. It is illegal to deprive an innocent person of life.

2. Partial birth abortion deprives and innocent person of life. __________________________________________________ _
3. Partial birth abortion should be illegal.

A person being defined as a human able to sustain life outside the mother's womb.
Most of the time it is not able yet to live outside of the womb. Determining it is, is saying it has a near 100% chance of survival which is simply not true. Partial birth abortion could be declared illegal if provided exceptions for mother's health, mother's life, severe birth deformation of the baby, incest and rape cases.

Simon666

12-10-2003, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Simon your "source," as I have already mentioned, supports my case not yours! You said partial birth abortion "is not murder as the fetus is not yet a person and they do not have a chance of life out of the womb." I have clearly shown that statement to be false. You have offered nothing else. You have nothing, again.
Some could live, most don't until somewhere after week 24. After that the chances it lives are greater than 50% but the question is then still what kind of life will it live? I was wrong in my belief that all do not live, you are however incorrect in assume because a select some might live, they all could enjoy protection.
Originally posted by ScummyD
I was waiting for this ridiculous argument to surface from the murky depths. If you have to reduce your argument to semantical manners such as this you are obviously bankrupt. Nice try, better luck next time. Game over.
Well excuse me, if you sqeal "murder" at every occasion, I can question that. There are cases where it is perfectly justified for the mother to have a partial birth abortion as I have already listed.

Duo_Maxwell

12-10-2003, 07:49 PM

http://www.myinky.com/ecp/gleaner_opinion/article/0,1626,ECP_4480_2371046,00.html

But that could hardly be expected from an institution that has 86 men and only 14 women, nine of whom voted against the ban. Only four women senators voted for making the procedure unlawful and one failed to vote at all. If nothing else, this should give the chauvinists who run the Senate an indication of how most women feel about all these efforts by men to dictate how they must treat pregnancies.

This is what i'm talking about Scummyd.

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
Partial birth abortion could be declared illegal if provided exceptions for mother's health, mother's life, severe birth deformation of the baby, incest and rape cases.
Mother's life, incest and rape, agreed. But like you have stated previously, the mother's health? The problem then becomes how do you define health?

ScummyD

12-10-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
After that the chances it lives are greater than 50% but the question is then still what kind of life will it live? I was wrong in my belief that all do not live, you are however incorrect in assume because a select some might live, they all could enjoy protection.
May be I am wrong. But you haven't showed anything compelling to support your opinion.

"What kind of life will it live" is, again, nothing to do with it. You are completely missing the point, repeatedly no less. The fact is the person is alive.

Well excuse me, if you sqeal "murder" at every occasion, I can question that. There are cases where it is perfectly justified for the mother to have a partial birth abortion as I have already listed.
Sure question it all you want. My point is, you have failed to back your claims up with anything. Your only argument is that supposedly most babies wouldn't make it outside the womb. You can not answer to the babies that would survive. Your only argument then becomes "what kind of life will it live." If the baby was allowed to come to term it would more than likely live a healthy normal life. There shouldn't be partial birth abortions in the first place, therefore there shouldn't be the question of "what kind of life will it have."

Voice Of Reason

12-10-2003, 09:47 PM

Is anyone in this forum for Partial Brth Abortion on demand?

Stand up and be counted...........

Simon666

12-11-2003, 06:28 AM

Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
Is anyone in this forum for Partial Brth Abortion on demand?

Stand up and be counted...........
No, but I am if you want to restrict it altogether. And don't pretend like women do it because they feel like it, very few choose that procedure and as even you should acknowledge that is very emotionally charged. People don't go over that lightly.
Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
Sure question it all you want. My point is, you have failed to back your claims up with anything. Your only argument is that supposedly most babies wouldn't make it outside the womb. You can not answer to the babies that would survive. Your only argument then becomes "what kind of life will it live." If the baby was allowed to come to term it would more than likely live a healthy normal life. There shouldn't be partial birth abortions in the first place, therefore there shouldn't be the question of "what kind of life will it have."
Those few that can live at that moment have less intellectual capacities than a simple housecat yet people can kill those when they think they have no longer use for them.

ScummyD

12-12-2003, 05:59 PM

I believe I posted that.

You last sentence in response is ridiculous. You are equating a human life to that of a house cat??? :laughter:

This debate is clearly over.

Immanuel

12-12-2003, 07:32 PM

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2003/04/07/prsc0407.htm

"The AMA policy, approved in 1997, states that there appears to be no identified situation where intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure, but the association thinks the decision of when and if to use it should be left to doctors."

I saw that someone earlier posted that the procedure should be allowed when a woman's life or health was in danger. I just thought that I would post this link from the American Medical Association that says that they cannot identify any situation where the procedure is the only appropriate procedure.

The fact is that by technically going through the birthing process and leaving the head just centimeters from a completed birth, the mother has already been put through the trauma of the birth. Completing the birth procedure at this point (only seconds from successful delivery) does not endanger the woman anymore than she has already been endangered.

I believe it was Simon666 who made the statement earlier that these children might not be able to live "normal" lives if they are born too early. That may be true, but no one will ever know from the moment the incision is made at the base of the babies' skull and the life is destroyed.

Maybe there are some very rare instances where a child cannot survive. For instance, when the brain is outside the skull. I don't remember the term for that, but those instances are extremely rare. I don't think anyone has the right to make a woman (although the husband should have as much of a say as the woman) go through a pregnancy when the baby will not survive. That would be just plain cruel. But, this is an extremely rare circumstance.

Partial Birth Abortion, as well as, any elective (birth control the vast majority of all abortions) abortion should be banned. We need to educate our children before they get involved in sex, not use abortion as a solution to "our" problem.

Immanuel

12-12-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I believe I posted that.

You last sentence in response is ridiculous. You are equating a human life to that of a house cat??? :laughter:

This debate is clearly over.

Well, that is clearly better than the typical pro-"choice" term for a life--a "clump of cells".

What they (pro-choicers) tend to forget is that while the fetus (human life in the womb) is nothing more than a clump of cells, when you get right down to it, neither are they.

No, slam intended on you Simon666. I am too new to the site to know your philosophy on this subject.

POWERSTROKE

12-12-2003, 09:29 PM

The same as my thoughts on cutting someones arms and legs off. it is wrong. when you get right down to it, I feel it is murder. Do people have consciences?:mad:

cpwill

12-13-2003, 03:21 AM

just so we all know what it is we're discussing....
http://www.abortionno.com/Resources/pictures.html

Simon666

12-13-2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I believe I posted that. You last sentence in response is ridiculous. You are equating a human life to that of a house cat??? :laughter: This debate is clearly over.
The life is only human by DNA and basic anatomy, it has no other human features whatsoever : no free will as of yet, it is only just able to feel pain, has no sense of right or wrong. Its intellectual capacity is of the same or even lower level as that of a cat. You only think it is ridiculous because you attach emotional value to it. Objectively speaking, you would have no other option than to agree with me. That's why you want the discussion to end.

cpwill

12-13-2003, 09:18 AM

heck, a 6-month old has no sense of right or wrong. Some adults have no sense of right or wrong. a newborns' intellectual capability is of lower level than that of a cat. at what point do we become human, simon? after we say our first words?
perhaps at 2 years?

Simon666

12-13-2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by cpwill
heck, a 6-month old has no sense of right or wrong. Some adults have no sense of right or wrong. a newborns' intellectual capability is of lower level than that of a cat. at what point do we become human, simon? after we say our first words?
perhaps at 2 years?
I say when the mother wants it and when it can survive outside the womb with 99% chance, probably around 7 months. If the mother doesn't want it, it is not human yet and she has the choice, if the mother doesn't want it and it can most definitely live on its own, it can be born live and adopted and become a human with another family. Just my opinion.

cpwill

12-13-2003, 09:34 AM

a person's humanity is dependant on how one whether one other individual thinks it is or not? patently false; the mother's desire or lack thereof in no way actually changes the infant.

Simon666

12-13-2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by cpwill
a person's humanity is dependant on how one whether one other individual thinks it is or not? patently false; the mother's desire or lack thereof in no way actually changes the infant.
Sorry, I did not want to say it becomes human at that point, but when it should be given a chance as human at that point. I don't know when children start discriminating between right or wrong, perhaps around age 2?

ScummyD

12-13-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
The life is only human by DNA and basic anatomy, it has no other human features whatsoever
I have already proved you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and you posted a link that even supported my case that it is a baby and it is alive.

no free will as of yet, it is only just able to feel pain, has no sense of right or wrong. Its intellectual capacity is of the same or even lower level as that of a cat. You only think it is ridiculous because you attach emotional value to it. Objectively speaking, you would have no other option than to agree with me. That's why you want the discussion to end.
Again, the fact is that there is substantial chances for the babies of partial birth abortions to live outside of the womb if given a chance. That is undebatable and you posted a link confirming this yourself!

This is a reprehensible look into the barbaric practice you so desperately attempt to defend with such ill conceived "logic." How you can accept this practice and defend it makes me think you really are a demented Satanist.

ScummyD

12-13-2003, 01:29 PM

That photo is of a stage of life that is taken when partial birth abortions are done. Hideous!

Simon666

12-13-2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I have already proved you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt and you posted a link that even supported my case that it is a baby and it is alive.
That was another item and you only proved me partially wrong. Before week 23 the chances of survival are very slim.
Originally posted by ScummyD
This is a reprehensible look into the barbaric practice you so desperately attempt to defend with such ill conceived "logic." How you can accept this practice and defend it makes me think you really are a demented Satanist.
I said it is emotionally charged and you giving such graphic pictures is testimony of that, however, you have to acknowledge, considering the intelligence level and the capabilities of a fetus in that stage, if there would be an intelligent alien species as independant judge, a fetus in that stage would be considered worth less than a pig or even a cat.

ScummyD

12-13-2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
That was another item and you only proved me partially wrong. Before week 23 the chances of survival are very slim.
Very slim in no way equates to not possible. When I said the gay population is a small group within society you objected. Now you are trying to tell me the percentage of survival chances of partial birth abortion victims, which are far greater than the percent of gays in population as a group, is very slim??? What gives??? You are contradicting yourself.

I said it is emotionally charged and you giving such graphic pictures is testimony of that, however, you have to acknowledge, considering the intelligence level and the capabilities of a fetus in that stage, if there would be an intelligent alien species as independant judge, a fetus in that stage would be considered worth less than a pig or even a cat.
So now you have moved from equating human life to that of house cats to rating the importance of a human life by its "intelligence levels and the capabilities." Man are you floundering in a most despicable manner. These opinions of yours are truly unbelievable.

More later, now I must go to work like the true capatilist pig I am. :D

Simon666

12-13-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Now you are trying to tell me the percentage of survival chances of partial birth abortion victims, which are far greater than the percent of gays in population as a group, is very slim???
Have you ever listened to yourself? That doesn't make any sense, let alone I said that. That's a strawman argument.
Originally posted by ScummyD
So now you have moved from equating human life to that of house cats to rating the importance of a human life by its "intelligence levels and the capabilities." Man are you floundering in a most despicable manner. These opinions of yours are truly unbelievable. More later, now I must go to work like the true capatilist pig I am. :D
I do rate the value of a creatures life by its intelligence. This goes a little bit as follows: human - pig - chimp - dolphin - ... - cat. Or human - chimp - pig - dolphin - ... - cat. Scientists are not conclusive yet whether pigs are smarter than apes or vice versa, but pigs are smart. Anyway, to get to the point: considering intelligence and capabilities a human fetus comes behind pig and a fetus in that stage probably even behind a cat.

POWERSTROKE

12-13-2003, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
That photo is of a stage of life that is taken when partial birth abortions are done. Hideous!
It's not a life though....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Simon666

12-13-2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by POWERSTROKE
It's not a life though....:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Not anymore. :D:p

BoFA

12-15-2003, 06:55 AM

I take the counter position and save the baby when one of the lives will unfortunately have to be sacrificed.

Blueangel

12-15-2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by BoFA
I take the counter position and save the baby when one of the lives will unfortunately have to be sacrificed. So if the case arose, where the life of a mother of three young children was in peril if her pregnancy continued, you'd opt to to make her existing children live without their mother? Even though there are no guarantees that the baby would survive such a premature birth? :(
I see absolutely no logic in that decision.

Simon666

12-15-2003, 09:22 AM

Who said the Bible or the Koran contains logic?

BoFA

12-15-2003, 02:42 PM

Simon666

12-15-2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by BoFA
I still say save the baby.
That's open for interpretation, I think you are clearly saying you will kill the wife.

BoFA

12-15-2003, 04:10 PM

Knife the wife? Do you think that's a little extreme and out of the context of my opinion?
Look at what I originally said:

"I take the counter position and save the baby when one of the lives will unfortunately have to be sacrificed."
I'm not trying to portray a complete disregard of life.
I'm not talking about abortions; just because...
But given the absolute condition that either the mother or the baby will die, I say save the baby.

...That's open for interpretation...
I agree that this would be a very difficult decision for some people.

Simon666

12-15-2003, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by BoFA
But given the absolute condition that either the mother or the baby will die, I say save the baby.
Or kill the wife, but ofcourse you don't like to look at it that way. I do.

CyNix

12-15-2003, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Blueangel
So if the case arose, where the life of a mother of three young children was in peril if her pregnancy continued, you'd opt to to make her existing children live without their mother? Even though there are no guarantees that the baby would survive such a premature birth? :(
I see absolutely no logic in that decision.

To my understanding of partial birth abortion, the child is already partialy birthed when the abortion is executed. How would the mothers life be in danger by the child exiting the womb alive, as opposed to exiting the womb dead? Any way it is done, the child will come out. It would not help the mother in any way, to remove the brain of the child.

Simon666

12-16-2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by CyNix
To my understanding of partial birth abortion, the child is already partialy birthed when the abortion is executed. How would the mothers life be in danger by the child exiting the womb alive, as opposed to exiting the womb dead? Any way it is done, the child will come out. It would not help the mother in any way, to remove the brain of the child.
If that is performed to save the mothers life, an abortion is necessary anyhow. Giving the survival chances of the fetus outside and the risks on handicaps, it's better just to kill it instead of letting it slowly suffer outside the womb.

CyNix

12-23-2003, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Simon666
If that is performed to save the mothers life, an abortion is necessary anyhow. Giving the survival chances of the fetus outside and the risks on handicaps, it's better just to kill it instead of letting it slowly suffer outside the womb.

So, because the baby could suffer pain, maybe die, it should be killed? Does this mean we should also kill sick people in hospitals? Or the mentaly retarded? How about handicaps? Why not just kill everyone? We will all get sick, suffer pain, and die. I do not think we should be killing sick babies. Let them live.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Simon666
The life is only human by DNA and basic anatomy, it has no other human features whatsoever : no free will as of yet, it is only just able to feel pain, has no sense of right or wrong.
Simon your statement marks a new stage in losing it: transition to derangement. By your twisted logic we should eliminate a baby because it has no free will, or it has just begun to feel pain, or has no sense of right and wrong??? :confused:

And the baby would most likely be born healthy if allowed to come to term. Something you avoid repeatedly in a bizarre manner.

Should we execute all those who have no sense of right and wrong as your argument seems to imply?

Its intellectual capacity is of the same or even lower level as that of a cat. You only think it is ridiculous because you attach emotional value to it. Objectively speaking, you would have no other option than to agree with me.
Earth to Simon it is a human life, HUMAN. Surely you must value human life more than that of a cat? I hope.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 03:53 AM

Simon666

12-23-2003, 07:05 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Simon your statement marks a new stage in losing it: transition to derangement. By your twisted logic we should eliminate a baby because it has no free will, or it has just begun to feel pain, or has no sense of right and wrong??? :confused: Should we execute all those who have no sense of right and wrong as your argument seems to imply?
Should eliminate? I only implied they do not have the same rights as sentient human beings who are able to feel pain, discern between right and wrong and having a free will. That does not mean those who do not meet these criteria have no rights at all. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by ScummyD
And the baby would most likely be born healthy if allowed to come to term. Something you avoid repeatedly in a bizarre manner.
So what? If you had sex, the baby would most likely be born healthy if allowed to come to term. Should you prevent your wife from not having sex and make it law? :D (Somehow I expect a yes).
Originally posted by ScummyD
Earth to Simon it is a human life, HUMAN. Surely you must value human life more than that of a cat? I hope.
If the human life is superior in thinking and intellectual capacities than a cat - which is not the case for a certain stage in the first stage of human development - I value human life more.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
You never answered to this argument Simon.
A human able to sustain life outside the mother's womb. Before week 24 the ability to live outside the womb is less than 50%. What do you do with those?

Immanuel

12-23-2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Simon666
A human able to sustain life outside the mother's womb. Before week 24 the ability to live outside the womb is less than 50%. What do you do with those?

So by this argument, if a person has a heart condition requiring an operation, but the doctor feels that the chance of survival for the patient is less than 50%, then the patient should be killed instead of performing the operation. Since the patient has less than a 50% probability of survival, no attempt should be made to save his or her life.

What if the patient was Simon666? Would you feel any differently?

Wouldn't you say this argument is ridiculous, Simon?

I think you would say that this patient deserves to have the doctor take whatever efforts can be taken to save his or her life.

I think that if the patient was you, that regardless of the chance of survival (even if it was only 10%) you would want the effort taken to save your life. I think you would expect it.

Even if the fetus only has a small chance of survival, it too deserves to have the same efforts to protect and save it's life as you or anyone else does.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 12:12 PM

A fetus of that age is in no way comparable to a heart patient, as it is probably not even self aware. The heart patient can make a decision whether he wants to be operated or not, a fetus does simply not have the brain as for making such a decision. That is why I do NOT consider that even if the fetus only has a small chance of survival, it too deserves to have the same efforts to protect and save its life as you or anyone else does.

Immanuel

12-23-2003, 12:25 PM

Simon,

A life is a life.

Every life is worth fighting for.

Even a chimp's life should be protected. No one should be allowed to cruelly take the life of even the "dumbest" animal.

Here in America we have laws that protect animals from cruel treatment. It is a fact that a person convicted of cruelty to animals can serve more time than a person convicted of murder.

Even if you consider a fetus to be no more intelligent than a cat, a dog, a chimp, a pig the fetus is entitled to at least the same protection as these. Even if you consider it to not be as intelligent as any of these it should still be afforded the same rights as any "animal".

Simon666

12-23-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel
Even a chimp's life should be protected. No one should be allowed to cruelly take the life of even the "dumbest" animal.
I don't deny that. I say whenever the intelligence of a human being is equivalent to that of a chimp, it deserves the same rights as a chimp. I did not say it deserves to be killed. However, if the intelligence is like that of a cat or dog or even lower, it has the same rights as those and can be put down if considered inconvenient.
Originally posted by Immanuel
Even if you consider it to not be as intelligent as any of these it should still be afforded the same rights as any "animal".
That is what I said all along.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
A human able to sustain life outside the mother's womb. Before week 24 the ability to live outside the womb is less than 50%. What do you do with those?
Here you go with the same blind and bizare argument again.

Let the baby come to term and be born like any civilized person would, not slaughter it simply because the mother doesn't want it.

If allowed to come to term the baby would most likely be born healthy. The chances for a healthy birth are overwhelming. The only reason it would have less than a 50 percent chance to live would be because the mother wanted it ripped from her loins and murdered. Can you not not get this through your thick Satan worshipping skull?

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
A fetus of that age is in no way comparable to a heart patient, as it is probably not even self aware. The heart patient can make a decision whether he wants to be operated or not, a fetus does simply not have the brain as for making such a decision. That is why I do NOT consider that even if the fetus only has a small chance of survival, it too deserves to have the same efforts to protect and save its life as you or anyone else does.
You argue in such an oblique manner. Again your bizare blindness.
The ONLY reason we are discussing the chances for life, and what the percentage for survival is, is because the hypothetical mother wants to kill her unborn baby. Let it come to term and it would have an overwhelming chance at a healthy long life. This is something you continually ignore.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
I say whenever the intelligence of a human being is equivalent to that of a chimp, it deserves the same rights as a chimp. I did not say it deserves to be killed. However, if the intelligence is like that of a cat or dog or even lower, it has the same rights as those and can be put down if considered inconvenient.
So you equate human life with that of a cat or dog. How ridiculous!

Even more telling is the fact you are willing to let people slaughter unborn babies on the basis of convenience. How atrocious!

You are dispicable.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 01:41 PM

Simon do you consider yourself a "destroyer of empires?" Or are you referring to Belgium? Sorry to burst your bubble but Belgium couldn't destroy an empire if its Flemish frits depended on it.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Here you go with the same blind and bizare argument again. Let the baby come to term and be born like any civilized person would, not slaughter it simply because the mother doesn't want it.

You argue in such an oblique manner. Again your bizare blindness.
The ONLY reason we are discussing the chances for life, and what the percentage for survival is, is because the hypothetical mother wants to kill her unborn baby. Let it come to term and it would have an overwhelming chance at a healthy long life. This is something you continually ignore.
That is not an option if the mother's health or life is involved. Do you have any neutral, scientific on how often this procedure is performed and for what reason? Do you really think women do it for fun or just because they were in a bad mood? :rolleyes: Chances are the mother would have an overwhelming chance at an unhealthy life if a life at all.
Originally posted by ScummyD
So you equate human life with that of a cat or dog. How ridiculous! Even more telling is the fact you are willing to let people slaughter unborn babies on the basis of convenience. How atrocious! You are dispicable.
I am despicable. And I refuse to apply mere emotional arguments. A fertilized egg is not equivalent to a human being, an embryo is neither and nor is a fetus.
Originally posted by ScummyD
Simon do you consider yourself a "destroyer of empires?" Or are you referring to Belgium? Sorry to burst your bubble but Belgium couldn't destroy an empire if its Flemish frits depended on it.
I consider one of the duties of a servant of Satan to destroy empires. It is basically just to taunt AmericanSamurai. Read one of his posts and you will understand. :cool:

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
Should eliminate? I only implied they do not have the same rights as sentient human beings who are able to feel pain,
Babies who are slaughtered in partial birth abortions do feel pain.

discern between right and wrong
The ability to discern right from wrong has absolutely no bearing on whether a baby should be allowed to live. This ability does not come for a long while after a baby is born and some people never aquire it. This argument is such a load of tripe on your part. How can you honestly put forth such drivel???

and having a free will.
Do you even have free will? Or me or anyone else? From a philosophical standpoint a strong case can be made we don't, that we are in fact a product of our environment and as such our actions are dictated by our experiences and we really have no free will.

That does not mean those who do not meet these criteria have no rights at all.
But you just think we should kill them is what your argument boils down to.

If you had sex, the baby would most likely be born healthy if allowed to come to term.
Exactly! If Simon the partial birth baby slaughtering Satan worshipper didn't intervene in what is otherwise a healthy pregnancy the baby would be born healthy in the vast overwhelming number of cases. But since you want to allow people to kill their unborn children, and at the time when a partial birth abortion is performed they don't have a 100 percent chance of survival, you say kill the baby??? Can you not see the obliqueness of your thoughts here??? If you didn't interfer in the first place the baby would be born healthy.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
That is not an option if the mother's health or life is involved.
Agreed. But I thought I had made it clear I am not talking about cases such as that. I do feel there should be exceptions for said procedure when the mother's life is in jeopardy. I think you have said a mother's health as well??? The question then becomes what exactly constitutes health?

I am despicable.
Thanks for the admittance. :D

I consider one of the duties of a servant of Satan to destroy empires. It is basically just to taunt AmericanSamurai. Read one of his posts and you will understand. :cool:
I stand corrected. ;) On second thought, I will retrack my previous comment. I realize I took it a little too seriously.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Exactly! If Simon the partial birth baby slaughtering Satan worshipper didn't intervene in what is otherwise a healthy pregnancy the baby would be born healthy in the vast overwhelming number of cases. But since you want to allow people to kill their unborn children, and at the time when a partial birth abortion is performed they don't have a 100 percent chance of survival, you say kill the baby??? Can you not see the obliqueness of your thoughts here??? If you didn't interfer in the first place the baby would be born healthy.
Sorry for the rearranging in the order of arguments, I felt it was needed to make my point. First, you ignored the rest of the paragraph, would you then also outlaw sex that isn't aimed for reproduction, like the Vatican would want? Second, because of something it would be in a couple of months does not mean it already is and deserves the same rights as a newborn already. And third, the baby wouldn't be born healthy if the mother would die or suffer injury. For which I refer to the next point.
Originally posted by ScummyD
Agreed. But I thought I had made it clear I am not talking about cases such as that. I do feel there should be exceptions for said procedure when the mother's life is in jeopardy. I think you have said a mother's health as well??? The question then becomes what exactly constitutes health?
If you include mother's health as well, I would not have that much objections of outlawing it.
Originally posted by ScummyD
Babies who are slaughtered in partial birth abortions do feel pain. The ability to discern right from wrong has absolutely no bearing on whether a baby should be allowed to live. This ability does not come for a long while after a baby is born and some people never aquire it. This argument is such a load of tripe on your part. How can you honestly put forth such drivel??? Do you even have free will? Or me or anyone else? From a philosophical standpoint a strong case can be made we don't, that we are in fact a product of our environment and as such our actions are dictated by our experiences and we really have no free will.
I did not say each condition on its own is sufficient. Yes, they probably do feel pain. It is indeed correct that some people will never acquire the distinction between right and wrong, usually, these are the kind of people that you would put on death row, so it would be no great loss. And with free will I meant having the intelligence to make decisions, whether good or bad, not free will in a philosophical sense.

Immanuel

12-23-2003, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
I don't deny that. I say whenever the intelligence of a human being is equivalent to that of a chimp, it deserves the same rights as a chimp. I did not say it deserves to be killed. However, if the intelligence is like that of a cat or dog or even lower, it has the same rights as those and can be put down if considered inconvenient.

That is what I said all along.

But, you did say it deserves to be killed! You have been saying that all along.

You have argued throughout this thread that anytime a fetus is unwanted that it deserves to be killed and that it has no rights.

You have said over and over again that just because it is not as intelligent as you think it should be at any given point in it's life that it is useless (inconvenient) and thus deserves to be killed if the mother does not want it.

Perhaps a definition of human being will help here:

Human Being -- 1) a member of the genus Homo. esp. of the species Homo Sapiens 2) a person.

Oops, maybe we should include the definition of person here:

Person - 1) a human being. 2) an individual or specified character. 3) The personality of a human being. 4) the living body of a human being.

Not included in this definition of person is the grammatical definition of person i.e. 1st person, 2nd person, 3rd person.

from the American Heritage Dictionary, office edition, third edition copyright 1994.

Anyway, in defining a human being I see no reference whatsoever to intelligence. Yet, you seem to define a human being by their intelligence. You have insinuated time and time again that because a fetus is not intelligent it is not human. Intelligence does not define humanity.

Your argument about its intelligence level being as low as a cat or dog would not get you very far in a court of law. If you were charged and convicted of killing a one day old baby (whose intelligence level YOU would consider to be at or below that point) that argument would put you right where you would belong. Behind bars, hopefully for a long time. So, what is the difference if the baby is a day old or will be born tomorrow or even next month?

Immanuel

12-23-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
If you include mother's health as well, I would not have that much objections of outlawing it.

What you seem to ignore is that an exception for the health of the mother is nothing more than allowing abortion on demand. Both the mother and the doctor who would be making the decision have a conflict of interest.

The mother is afraid and does not want the child.

The doctor stands to make $400-600 on the procedure.

By allowing an exception for the health of the mother any condition whatsoever (yes even a hangnail) can be used as a reason for aborting the fetus. It does not even take a hangnail. All the mother needs to do is claim that she is stressed out and the abortion can be performed. It does not even need to be true.

Perhaps if there were a neutral board of doctors who had to review each situation that could be curtailed, but you will never EVER get the pro-abortion side to agree to this.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 03:52 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel
But, you did say it deserves to be killed! You have been saying that all along. You have argued throughout this thread that anytime a fetus is unwanted that it deserves to be killed and that it has no rights.

You have said over and over again that just because it is not as intelligent as you think it should be at any given point in it's life that it is useless (inconvenient) and thus deserves to be killed if the mother does not want it.
Show me that sentence. I only said it could be killed, not that it deserves to be killed. I may be a self proclaimed second degree Satan worshipper, but I'm not THAT evil. No living being, not even a fly, deserves to die unless it has done something wrong. And I only said it had the rights of an animal with equivalent intelligence.
Originally posted by Immanuel
Person - 1) a human being. 2) an individual or specified character. 3) The personality of a human being. 4) the living body of a human being.

Anyway, in defining a human being I see no reference whatsoever to intelligence. Yet, you seem to define a human being by their intelligence. You have insinuated time and time again that because a fetus is not intelligent it is not human. Intelligence does not define humanity.
A fetus has no individuality, no character as of yet and no personality as of yet either. Intelligence does come into play as the lack of it ensures it doesn't meet definition 2) and 3).

Considering definitions 1) and 4) : a fetus is not a person yet, human by DNA, not my performance. It is equivalent to asking if a Lexus is a Toyota : same mechanics under the hood, different performance, quality and luxury.
Originally posted by Immanuel
Your argument about its intelligence level being as low as a cat or dog would not get you very far in a court of law. If you were charged and convicted of killing a one day old baby (whose intelligence level YOU would consider to be at or below that point) that argument would put you right where you would belong. Behind bars, hopefully for a long time. So, what is the difference if the baby is a day old or will be born tomorrow or even next month?
A baby is also somebody's very precious possession, one of the dearest to people. On top of that, the parents or adoption agency has then already shown or should have shown they would give it the chance of becoming a human being. I do not consider a day old baby a person either, but that doesn't mean I approve of killing it.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel
What you seem to ignore is that an exception for the health of the mother is nothing more than allowing abortion on demand. Both the mother and the doctor who would be making the decision have a conflict of interest. The mother is afraid and does not want the child. The doctor stands to make $400-600 on the procedure.
Says who? You think doctors are prostitutes for sale for around $400-600? My dad is doctor, I find this particularly insulting. :mad:
Originally posted by Immanuel
By allowing an exception for the health of the mother any condition whatsoever (yes even a hangnail) can be used as a reason for aborting the fetus. It does not even take a hangnail. All the mother needs to do is claim that she is stressed out and the abortion can be performed. It does not even need to be true.
Again, says who that each condition would be used? What backup do you have for this? This sounds typical anti-abortionist propagandal. There are serious conditions that risk the health of the mother (eclampsia), you are trivializing things when you claim even a hangnail would be sufficient. That is drivel.
Originally posted by Immanuel
Perhaps if there were a neutral board of doctors who had to review each situation that could be curtailed, but you will never EVER get the pro-abortion side to agree to this.
Well I would if the board was truly neutral instead of filled with anti abortionists.

JustinH

12-23-2003, 05:23 PM

I can never understand why some conservatives are so intent on taking personal choices away from the people. It's partial-birth abortion wrong? That's not my decision nor yours to make, because neither the government nor any of you have to live with that decision.

Honestly, I see a big difference between babies in garbage cans, or babies raised in crack houses to a fetus being terminated. So you conservatives keep preaching how "wrong" it is, and then if it ever did get banned, watch the crack-baby and garbage-can baby population sky-rocket. To me, anti-choice activists would rather see a child live a horrible life, as opposed to never living. That makes a LOT of sense to me.

JustinH

12-23-2003, 05:29 PM

Oh, and as for the argument that men should have more "decision-making" in an abortion, that's just hogwash. Here's the arguments:

We have to pay child support even if we don't want the child and we don't get to choose whether or not abortion is an option.

Quit whinning and keep it in your pants. You have the right to not have sex, you have the right to wear a condom. It's really simple... if you have a problem with not being able to decide, then don't have sex.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
First, you ignored the rest of the paragraph, would you then also outlaw sex that isn't aimed for reproduction, like the Vatican would want? Second, because of something it would be in a couple of months does not mean it already is and deserves the same rights as a newborn already. And third, the baby wouldn't be born healthy if the mother would die or suffer injury. For which I refer to the next point.
1. No
2. We will just have to disagree on that matter.
3. Like I said, I am not talking about cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy if the child is allowed to come to term.

It is indeed correct that some people will never acquire the distinction between right and wrong, usually, these are the kind of people that you would put on death row, so it would be no great loss.
Not in America. If a person is indeed insane and cannot distinguish between right and wrong they do not go to death row.

And with free will I meant having the intelligence to make decisions, whether good or bad, not free will in a philosophical sense.
Fair enough. But I don't see how not having the intelligence to make decisions, not being able to distinguish between right and wrong, and only just being able to feel pain add up to the idea the unborn child should be slaughtered. You said singly these issues are not sufficient but your argument then implies that collectively that is enough to justify murder.

Two posts you have still yet to answer to are, and we are waiting patiently:

Why people get charged with murder if they punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and force the death of the baby. Or why, as happened here in CA, if a man drives his car over a cliff and kills his pregnant wife he gets charged with the murder of the unborn child as well as his wife. Why, as is currently going to court now in CA, is Scott Peterson being tried for killing his unborn baby and not just his wife Laci.

quote:
Originally, originally, originally posted by ScummyD
1. It is illegal to deprive an innocent person of life.

2. Partial birth abortion deprives and innocent person of life. __________________________________________________
_
3. Partial birth abortion should be illegal.

A person being defined as a human able to sustain life outside the mother's
womb.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by JustinH
I can never understand why some conservatives are so intent on taking personal choices away from the people. It's partial-birth abortion wrong? That's not my decision nor yours to make, because neither the government nor any of you have to live with that decision.
Your logic is shallow and irrational to an extreme.

Whether or not the "government nor any of you have to live with that decision" is most definitely completely irrelevant and we don't base law on such a flimsy foundation.

Honestly, I see a big difference between babies in garbage cans, or babies raised in crack houses to a fetus being terminated.
This is a measly attempt at throwing up a smoke screen and diverting attention from the issue at hand.

So you conservatives keep preaching how "wrong" it is, and then if it ever did get banned, watch the crack-baby and garbage-can baby population sky-rocket.
So if we follow your twisted reasoning to its logical conclusion we should not pass laws because then some people will break them. :lol:

To me, anti-choice activists would rather see a child live a horrible life, as opposed to never living. That makes a LOT of sense to me.
Do you have a crystal ball? How can you say the child will live a horrible life? Fact is you can't. The fact is I can say for sure the baby would be slaughtered and never have a chance at life in any capacity if you had your way. Your view is speculation, mine is empirical undeniable fact.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by JustinH

Quit whinning and keep it in your pants. You have the right to not have sex, you have the right to wear a condom. It's really simple... if you have a problem with not being able to decide, then don't have sex.
Man are you all over the map on this one. :laughter: :lol:

The fact is women don't have to have sex either. If they don't want a baby don't have sex. Partial birth abortion should be illegal and if a woman doesn't want to have to be in a position of breaking the law then she shouln't have sex.

Simon666

12-23-2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Two posts you have still yet to answer to are, and we are waiting patiently:

Why people get charged with murder if they punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and force the death of the baby. Or why, as happened here in CA, if a man drives his car over a cliff and kills his pregnant wife he gets charged with the murder of the unborn child as well as his wife. Why, as is currently going to court now in CA, is Scott Peterson being tried for killing his unborn baby and not just his wife Laci.

quote:
Originally, originally, originally posted by ScummyD
1. It is illegal to deprive an innocent person of life.

2. Partial birth abortion deprives and innocent person of life. __________________________________________________
_
3. Partial birth abortion should be illegal.

A person being defined as a human able to sustain life outside the mother's
womb.
Post one : concerning the Scott Peterson case: apparently because the law contadicts with itself some place, but not anymore now that anti abortionists have had their victory.

Post two : read my response to Immanuel. I do not consider a fetus a person and have given the reasons for this decision there.

JustinH

12-23-2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Your logic is shallow and irrational to an extreme.

Whether or not the "government nor any of you have to live with that decision" is most definitely completely irrelevant and we don't base law on such a flimsy foundation.

Shallow and irrational? You must be a conservative... they always use the same argument when they can't think of anything intellegent to say:

Person: Here's what I think...
Conservative: You're stupid

Well thought out response... As for your "we don't base law" crap, then what do you base it on? Your religious and moral perceptions that are no way tied to any scientific reasoning? Sounds like you belong back in the times of the Spanish Inquisition.

This is a measly attempt at throwing up a smoke screen and diverting attention from the issue at hand.

Of course you say that, it's easy to simply ignore reasoning and just slap some disolutioned definition on it. That way you don't have to come up with an intellegent response.

So if we follow your twisted reasoning to its logical conclusion we should not pass laws because then some people will break them. :lol:

FYI: throwing babies in garbage cans is already illegal smart guy. We shouldn't pass laws that forces religious ideals on other people. It's not an issue of people breaking laws, since they already do, it's an issue of the problem increasing.

Do you have a crystal ball? How can you say the child will live a horrible life? Fact is you can't. The fact is I can say for sure the baby would be slaughtered and never have a chance at life in any capacity if you had your way. Your view is speculation, mine is empirical undeniable fact.

Yes you are so right, no child forced into birth without the consent of the mother will ever live a horrible life. If one child does because of this garbage legislation it's too many.

Two different issues and you try to merge them to prove you are right. You can no more prove that every child will live a good life after being born unwanted either (and if you sincerely believe that, it's purly stupidity). It will happen due to Conservatives pushing their moral and religious beliefs on others... your view is undeniably unreasonable.

The fact is women don't have to have sex either. If they don't want a baby don't have sex. Partial birth abortion should be illegal and if a woman doesn't want to have to be in a position of breaking the law then she shouln't have sex.

Did I say anything to the contrary... although you managed to take my quote completely out of context. Partial birth abortion shouldn't be illegal and if a women doesn't want to have a child she shouldn't have to.

Now, does your last sentence imply rape victims shouldn't have had sex?

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by JustinH
... intellegent
:rolleyes:

Yes you are so right, no child forced into birth without the consent of the mother will ever live a horrible life.
I read your tone here but I never denied that.

If one child does because of this garbage legislation it's too many.
So better to just slaughter them instead huh?

You can no more prove that every child will live a good life after being born unwanted either (and if you sincerely believe that, it's purly stupidity).
You were a little too presumptuous in coming to this conslusion and should go back and read the post a little closer.

My point being, I don't think we should qualify a baby for life dependent on what kind of life we think it may have.

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by Simon666

Post two : read my response to Immanuel. I do not consider a fetus a person and have given the reasons for this decision there.
Well isn't that convenient. I know you don't think a fetus is a person but that is not the point. In the argument I define a person as a human able to sustain life outside the mother's
womb. A fetus is human and at the time some partial birth abortions are performed many babies can sustain life outside the womb. Say a at the time of a partial birth abortion the baby has a forty percent chance of life apart from the mother. Now, you say you do not consider a "fetus" a person, ut what happens when that so called fetus can in fact sustain life apart from its mother if given the chance?

ScummyD

12-23-2003, 11:53 PM

Not that the baby should have been aborted at that term in the first place unless the mother's life was in jeopardy. Even then I don't know how much more risky it would be to go ahead and birthed the baby anyhow.

JustinH

12-24-2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
:rolleyes:

How stimulating.

I read your tone here but I never denied that.

No, but you said I couldn't "prove" this would cause some children to have poor livelihoods.

So better to just slaughter them instead huh?

Slaughter: The killing of a large number of people

No, I think ending their lives before they start is a bit better. So you are saying that suffering is a better alternative to never living? Funny world you live in...

You were a little too presumptuous in coming to this conslusion and should go back and read the post a little closer.

Point out my error instead of flying in with accusations of my presumptions.

My point being, I don't think we should qualify a baby for life dependent on what kind of life we think it may have.

No instead we should force them into a possible living hell. That's a great policy... "Well, granted he was beaten and starved for nearly 5 years, but at least he didn't die painlessly"...

JustinH

12-24-2003, 01:35 AM

So I suppose all of you that oppose abortion because it's "murder", must also consider the death penalty murder, correct? Oh no... that's "justice" right? Yet another conservative oxymoron.

ScummyD

12-24-2003, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by JustinH
So I suppose all of you that oppose abortion because it's "murder", must also consider the death penalty murder, correct? Oh no... that's "justice" right? Yet another conservative oxymoron.
I am against the death penalty.

You are foolish to put everyone you come across into a neat little box. It only leads to false assumptions on your part.

JustinH

12-24-2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
I am against the death penalty.

You are foolish to put everyone you come across into a neat little box. It only leads to false assumptions on your part.

Well... how un-Republican of you. Regardless, I'm willing to bet the overwhelming majority of conservatives on this board are for Capital Punishment and against Abortion. Please, don't try to tell me you've never generalized. I'm willing to bet I can find examples in about 5 minutes.

ScummyD

12-24-2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by JustinH
How stimulating.
Not my intent.

No, but you said I couldn't "prove" this would cause some children to have poor livelihoods.
Show me were I said this. The fact is you can’t because I never said anything of the sort. You should really slow down and read a little closer. This is what I said:
Do you have a crystal ball? How can you say the child will live a horrible life? Fact is you can't. The fact is I can say for sure the baby would be slaughtered and never have a chance at life in any capacity if you had your way. Your view is speculation, mine is empirical undeniable fact.

Slaughter: The killing of a large number of people
American Heritage dictionary definition: slaughter: To kill brutally

What is your point??? :laughter:

No, I think ending their lives before they start is a bit better. So you are saying that suffering is a better alternative to never living? Funny world you live in...
Yet more inflammatory assumptions. Like I said, I can definitely say the baby will be slaughtered but you can not without doubt say the child will suffer in life more than any one else.

Point out my error instead of flying in with accusations of my presumptions.
If you reread the discussion perhaps you will understand. If not, not my concern as it is here for everyone else to see.

No instead we should force them into a possible living hell.
Again, I will repeat, I don't think we should qualify a baby for life dependent on what kind of life we think it may have. You are speculating on the types of lives people will have. You have no freakin’ clue.

That's a great policy... "Well, granted he was beaten and starved for nearly 5 years, but at least he didn't die painlessly"...
I suppose you don’t realize the silly nature of your argument here. Rank speculation on what may happen in years to come is what you are basing your position on.

JustinH

12-24-2003, 03:32 AM

Originally posted by ScummyD
Yet more inflammatory assumptions. Like I said, I can definitely say the baby will be slaughtered but you can not without doubt say the child will suffer in life more than any one else.

You can definately consider abortion brutal killing? That's funny, I consider babies in garbage cans a little more brutal... but because I can't indefinately say that some babies will be thrown in to garbage cans you are right? Simply fallacy...

If you reread the discussion perhaps you will understand. If not, not my concern as it is here for everyone else to see.

I'm perfectly capable of reading, you are obviously unable to qualify your points.

Again, I will repeat, I don't think we should qualify a baby for life dependent on what kind of life we think it may have. You are speculating on the types of lives people will have. You have no freakin’ clue.

Again, you are effectively saying simply because we don't know the outcome it's invalid. That's a fallacy. The fact of the matter is, some babies and children will live poor lives because of this. Is that fact? Nope... but to deny that is really stupid.

I suppose you don’t realize the silly nature of your argument here. Rank speculation on what may happen in years to come is what you are basing your position on.

Once again a fallacy. You can't simply invalidate my argument because the outcome is unknown. If that were the case, every argument, regardless of content that was based on expectations would simply be false in your mind. Narrow-minded view...

ScummyD

12-24-2003, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by JustinH
You can definately consider abortion brutal killing? That's funny, I consider babies in garbage cans a little more brutal... but because I can't indefinately say that some babies will be thrown in to garbage cans you are right? Simply fallacy...
You should be the last to utter the word fallacy. The majority of your arguments are fallacious. :laughter:

It doesn't matter which one is more brutal. That doesn't take away from the fact that abortion is a brutal action.

I'm perfectly capable of reading, you are obviously unable to qualify your points.
I'll let others be the judge of that.

Again, you are effectively saying simply because we don't know the outcome it's invalid. That's a fallacy. The fact of the matter is, some babies and children will live poor lives because of this.
lol. :laughter: Speaking of falacies. If "some babies and children will live poor lives" it is the result of the mother's poor choices not an abortion law. Hello??? :banghead:
Like I said, you should be the last to speak of fallacies.

... to deny that is really stupid.
I have already stated numerous times and unequivocally I do not deny this. Apparently you aren't "perfectly capable of reading" as you're clearly unable to comprehend what the heck it is you're trying to read. No fault of the author.

You can't simply invalidate my argument because the outcome is unknown.
What is your argument, we should kill babies before they are born because some may at some time suffer. As if nobody else suffers. Where do you draw the line? How much poverty or suffering would qualify one to be slaughtered???

ranger

12-24-2003, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by JustinH

Quit whinning and keep it in your pants. You have the right to not have sex, you have the right to wear a condom. It's really simple... if you have a problem with not being able to decide, then don't have sex.

Now you are joining ranks with the pro-life movement. Good Job.

No one has to have sex. The CHOICE you are so pro about could and should be made at that time. Hey if it is OK for you to expect the man to show control then it should be the same for the woman.

Immanuel

12-24-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Simon666
Show me that sentence. I only said it could be killed, not that it deserves to be killed. I may be a self proclaimed second degree Satan worshipper, but I'm not THAT evil. No living being, not even a fly, deserves to die unless it has done something wrong. And I only said it had the rights of an animal with equivalent intelligence.

A fetus has no individuality, no character as of yet and no personality as of yet either. Intelligence does come into play as the lack of it ensures it doesn't meet definition 2) and 3).

Considering definitions 1) and 4) : a fetus is not a person yet, human by DNA, not my performance. It is equivalent to asking if a Lexus is a Toyota : same mechanics under the hood, different performance, quality and luxury.

A baby is also somebody's very precious possession, one of the dearest to people. On top of that, the parents or adoption agency has then already shown or should have shown they would give it the chance of becoming a human being. I do not consider a day old baby a person either, but that doesn't mean I approve of killing it.

Definition of Individuality:

1) the aggregate of qualities that distinguish one individual from anogher. 2) the quality of being individual.

Definition of individual:

1) of or relating to a single human being.

The fetus most definitely is a single human being and has its own individuality. It is not the mother or the father. It is it's own person even when it is totally dependent on the mother while in her womb. A fetus responds to outside stimulus in the early stages of development.

You are continually trying to strip the humanity from the fetus because you cannot justify the slaughter of innocent human life by any means. Your only hope is to desensitize adults and convince them that the item within the mother's belly that can be felt moving within is nothing more than a clump of cells.

The moment you convince adults of this you have one. The moment that people wake up and realize that this is a living human being with its own personality and characteristics you are defeated.

What difference does it make if you consider it a person or not? You are by no means an authority. You have no right to redefine humanity just to fit your preference. Just because you don't want to admit that it is a human being or that it is not up to your standards of humanity does not mean that anyone has the right to take its life.

It seems to me that your arguments seem to be the same type of arguments used by Adolf Hitler when he instituted the Holocaust. No, I am not claiming that you are evil like Hitler. I am saying that Hitler's arguments were very similar to the ones that you are using here. Maybe you should look at your arguments and the arguments the NAZIs used and see if you agree with them.

[QU0TE]Says who? You think doctors are prostitutes for sale for around $400-600? My dad is doctor, I find this particularly insulting.[/QUOTE]

No insult to you or your dad intended. But the fact is that what abortionists do is a crime against humanity. Even if you want to say "It is not a human." You can call a rose a daisy all you want, but it is still a rose.

No, not doctors but abortionists. And yes I do believe that they have sold their souls. However, It is not the $400-600 though. It is the millions of dollars that the industry brings in every single year.

[QU0TE]Again, says who that each condition would be used? What backup do you have for this? This sounds typical anti-abortionist propagandal. There are serious conditions that risk the health of the mother (eclampsia), you are trivializing things when you claim even a hangnail would be sufficient. That is drivel.[/QUOTE]

I am not saying that those conditions would be used, only that they can be used by the definitions of the loopholes that you espouse.

I know that there are serious conditions that risk the life of the mother. You can read my other posts. I have always said that the mother should not have to sacrifice her life. I have said there is such a thing as self-defense.

I have come to respect your opinions and your arguments since I have been here Simon. I just believe that you are 100% wrong on this and that being wrong you bring about the deaths of millions of babies.

That has to be stopped. People must stand up against the horror of the abortion industry. Abortion is wrong. Killing innocent people is wrong.

Redefining humanity to fit your needs will never make it right.

Immanuel

12-24-2003, 12:30 PM

Simon666

12-24-2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Immanuel
Definition of Individuality:

1) the aggregate of qualities that distinguish one individual from anogher. 2) the quality of being individual.
INDIVIDUALITY
Pronunciation: `indu`vijoo'alitee

WordNet Dictionary

Definition:

the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; "you can lose your identity when you join the army"
the quality of being individual; "so absorbed by the movement that she lost all sense of individuality"
Neither applies, a fetus has no personality, it is most likely not even aware of its own existance. Even your definition barely applies as concerning the first, no fetus is different from the other in its thinking on issues as it doesn't even know what issues are, and second it does not have the quality of being individual = seperating itself as an unique human being by its thinking.
Originally posted by Immanuel
It seems to me that your arguments seem to be the same type of arguments used by Adolf Hitler when he instituted the Holocaust. No, I am not claiming that you are evil like Hitler. I am saying that Hitler's arguments were very similar to the ones that you are using here. Maybe you should look at your arguments and the arguments the NAZIs used and see if you agree with them.
The untermenschen idea was based upon racial, not intellectual superiority, hardly supported by facts. Hitler was further against abortion except for the retarded and racially unpure, he gave medals to mothers who gave birth to large numbers of children.
Originally posted by Immanuel
No insult to you or your dad intended. But the fact is that what abortionists do is a crime against humanity. Even if you want to say "It is not a human." You can call a rose a daisy all you want, but it is still a rose. No, not doctors but abortionists. And yes I do believe that they have sold their souls. However, It is not the $400-600 though. It is the millions of dollars that the industry brings in every single year.
Crime against humanity is a ridiculous exageration : how does that threaten mankind or people in general? And you are entitled to believe they have sold their soul, it is just not mine.
Originally posted by Immanuel
I am not saying that those conditions would be used, only that they can be used by the definitions of the loopholes that you espouse. I know that there are serious conditions that risk the life of the mother. You can read my other posts. I have always said that the mother should not have to sacrifice her life. I have said there is such a thing as self-defense.
How could they be used? How could non serious conditions be used when you would for example specify in the law only serious conditions apply as judged by a panel of neutral doctors? I just don't see it. There are also serious conditions that threaten the health of the mother.

JustinH

12-24-2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by ranger
Now you are joining ranks with the pro-life movement. Good Job.

No one has to have sex. The CHOICE you are so pro about could and should be made at that time. Hey if it is OK for you to expect the man to show control then it should be the same for the woman.

Pro-life because I say don't have sex if you don't want kids... that's a stretch :D.

I agree, both that if you don't want kids wear protection or don't have sex at all for both the man and women. But if both parties make a poor decision, men need to quit *****ing about not having a "choice" in the decision process... they did the moment they had unprotected sex.

Voice Of Reason

12-25-2003, 12:00 AM

But for the grace of God and their mothers Justin and Simon could have been aborted........

Look at the tragic loss we would have had...........:) :)

JustinH

12-25-2003, 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
But for the grace of God and their mothers Justin and Simon could have been aborted........

Look at the tragic loss we would have had...........:) :)

Pretty sick individual aren't you. So that's what you do, make disgusting comments like that and cover them up with smiles? Pathetic... truly pathetic.

Simon666

12-25-2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Voice Of Reason
But for the grace of God and their mothers Justin and Simon could have been aborted........

Look at the tragic loss we would have had...........:) :)
Well, fortunately it didn't happen now didn't it, who else would compensate for the average world IQ which you are dragging down?

JustinH

12-25-2003, 11:50 AM

:rofl:

Captain America

12-25-2003, 06:58 PM

But for the grace of God and their mothers Justin and Simon could have been aborted...Look at the tragic loss we would have had........... .....

As everyone knows I am pro-life but the quote above IS a good arguement for abortion.:rolleyes: That was uncalled for dude.

CyNix

12-26-2003, 01:23 AM

A Fetus is human. A Fetus is as much human as I am. A Fetus is human from the point of conception.
Think of the potential that fetus has, the potential that should make the killing of it unthinkable.
Within the womb of the mother lies a person who can become great, unlike any other creature aside from a human. That fetus has the potential to create great things, even cures for disease and sickness. The fetus has the potential to become a great leader. The potential to create a mighty nation, or to destroy them. To save many from evil rulers, or to slaughter millions mercilessly. The potential to create peace in nations torn apart by war. No one else on earth, aside from a human being has such great potential.
All people start small, and helpless. Everyone starts life with an undeveloped body, small and weak. An undeveloped brain, incapable of supporting complex thoughts and ideas. Even though the fetus is small, it lacks nothing. The few cells that it has will reproduce on their own. And if allowed time, that human will quickly develop.

JustinH

12-26-2003, 01:54 PM

At the point of conception is Sperm and an Egg, nothing more then that. To call that "human" is simply naive.

Simon666

12-26-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by CyNix
A Fetus is human. A Fetus is as much human as I am.
I did not know you had the brain of less than a chestnut. If you say so...
Originally posted by CyNix
A Fetus is human from the point of conception. Think of the potential that fetus has, the potential that should make the killing of it unthinkable.
Sperm cells also has potential. Millions of them die everyday.
Originally posted by CyNix
Within the womb of the mother lies a person who can become great, unlike any other creature aside from a human. That fetus has the potential to create great things, even cures for disease and sickness. The fetus has the potential to become a great leader. The potential to create a mighty nation, or to destroy them. To save many from evil rulers, or to slaughter millions mercilessly. The potential to create peace in nations torn apart by war. No one else on earth, aside from a human being has such great potential.
All people start small, and helpless. Everyone starts life with an undeveloped body, small and weak. An undeveloped brain, incapable of supporting complex thoughts and ideas. Even though the fetus is small, it lacks nothing. The few cells that it has will reproduce on their own. And if allowed time, that human will quickly develop.
Pure emotion, that's all.