If Bush wins the election, will abortion be made unconstitutional?

[alonzomourning23]

Considering that it seems almost certain the next president will be appointing supreme court justices, do you think abortion will be decalred unconstitutional in the next 4 years if bush wins the election?

[ElwoodCuse]

Even if Bush gets the Supreme Court nominees he wants, all that could happen is states could make laws against abortion. Some states will ban it, some won't. And this will take a lot to happen than just Bush winning the election.

[alonzomourning23]

While that is true, the majority of states would outlaw abortion if left up to them.

[bignick]

I hope so. Abortion is murder.

[eldad9]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

[David85]

Finally someone sees that when Bush wins in 3 weeks he won't just fuck the countey up for 4 more years, he will fuck it up for 40 more.

[Drocket]

I'd have to give a 2 part answer:

If Bush is elected, is RvW going to be overturned in the next 4 years? Rather unlikely. It'll probably be a couple of years before he's able to appoint many justices, and even after he does, they can't just overturn rulings willy-nilly: they have to wait for an applicable case to make a ruling. Justice moves slowly, plus they wouldn't want to make that sort of ruling anywhere near the 2008 election anyway, since it would hurt Republicans quite a bit, so I think its generally unlikely that it'll happen in the next 4 years

If Bush is elected, is RvW going to be overturned in the next 10 years? That's a whole lot more likely.

[elprincipe]

I'd like to see it made illegal again, but I don't think it will happen, at least in the next 4 years.

[eldad9]

I'd like to see it made illegal again

Let me guess. You don't have a womb, right?

[elprincipe]

I'd like to see it made illegal again

Let me guess. You don't have a womb, right?

What the hell does that have to do with it? I know plenty of women who want it to be outlawed as well, but so what? You think that I can't have an opinion on an issue because I'm not female? Think again.

Maybe you're one of these people who fall for the "a woman should do what she wants with her body" propaganda line. Let me clue you in: few people would argue with that statement, but it's about 2 people, not 1.

[ElwoodCuse]

Maybe you're one of these people who fall for the "a woman should do what she wants with her body" propaganda line. Let me clue you in: few people would argue with that statement, but it's about 2 people, not 1.

you aren't a person until you're born

and why shouldn't people do what they want to their own bodies?

[elprincipe]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

[eldad9]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

That's not what I was saying at all. But a "child" is not one cell, or two, or four. The word refers to somebody who has already been born (or at least about to)

Just to make sure: you would force your thirteen year old daughter to give birth to the rapist's baby. Am I correct?

[elprincipe]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

That's not what I was saying at all. But a "child" is not one cell, or two, or four. The word refers to somebody who has already been born.

Just to make sure: you would force your thirteen year old daughter to give birth to the rapist's child. Am I correct?

A child is the offspring of a man and a woman. Here's a nice definition for you from www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: child
Pronunciation: 'chI(&)ld
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural chil·dren /'chil-dr&n, -d&rn/
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English cild; akin to Gothic kilthei womb, and perhaps to Sanskrit jathara belly
1 a : an unborn or recently born person b dialect : a female infant
2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth b : a childlike or childish person c : a person not yet of age
3 usually childe /'chI(&)ld/ archaic : a youth of noble birth
4 a : a son or daughter of human parents b : DESCENDANT

Yes. I don't believe in killing someone because someone has been raped. It's sad if you do, I guess...or just rationalize it as, hey, it's not a person or some other delusional stuff like you guys always do.

[eldad9]

So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?

[elprincipe]

So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?

When an egg is successfully fertilized and implanted so that it is at the point where, if left alone, it will eventually be born as a human infant, yes, that is a person.

[eldad9]

OK, about that definition - what makes a person? Is a single cell a person?

[elprincipe]

OK, about that definition - what makes a person? Is a single cell a person?

Ditto what I just said above. As it's a fairly complex process, I can't make it any simpler (the explanation).

[eldad9]

I don't know how anybody can seriously claim that a single cell, with no hands, legs, eyes - or brain - with no thought whatsoever, no emotion, no awareness - is a person. It has the potential to become one, but that's all it is. Potential, which may or may not be realized.

By this logic, if you murder one grown-up person, you're guilty of murdering all of his possible descendants.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Well I'm pretty sure that no abortion is done early enough in the pregnancy to be a single cell. If I remeber correctly, by implantation the original zygote has already split and grown into at least 8 cells.

[eldad9]

Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.

[David85]

It is a person when it can live outside the mother without any help.

4 cells are not a baby.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.

[guardian_owl]

Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.

That gets into the realm of the morning after pill. The bill taken the morning after conception which destroys any fetus that may have been conceived.

[elprincipe]

Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.

Why are you so quick to put words in my mouth? I'm sure you are quite capable of reading what I actually typed in my response.

[elprincipe]

It is a person when it can live outside the mother without any help.

Medical advances are making it possible for babies to live outside the womb earlier and earlier in their lives. Are you saying that, as science marches on, babies become people at an earlier point in pregnancy?

[elprincipe]

Well when it's a person is a matter of opinino really. Usually it boils down to people's scientific and religous beliefs. I was just pointing out that an abortion wouldn't take place when it's a single cell.

That gets into the realm of the morning after pill. The bill taken the morning after conception which destroys any fetus that may have been conceived.

I'm not sure on the morning after pill, but I do remember hearing somewhere that it prevented any fertilized eggs from getting implanted or starting to grow. Anyone have any more detailed information? (curious)

[elprincipe]

Then when is it a person? 8 cells? 16? 32? when the brain is formed? eyes? second trimester? third? birth?

But I digress. elprincipe claims even a single cell has the same status (and therefore the same rights) as a completed person.

A baby outside the womb still has its brain developing. Is he/she not a person?

A baby outside the womb still has his/her eyes developing (newborns can't see very far at first). Is he/she not a person?

Babies in the second trimester can now survive outside the womb with medical assistance. Are they not people?

And what is this about "completed" people? Are amputees, the blind, deaf, handicapped, etc. not "completed"? Or perhaps young children are not "completed" because they haven't reached puberty? Why such a random distinction on whether a baby is outside the womb or inside? Rationalization for killing him or her, that's why.

[guardian_owl]

When you think about it, life is "death":

Excerpts from
McMahan, Jeff. “Cloning, killing, and identity.” Journal of Medical Ethics. April 1999: 77-86.

Some have argued that the possibility that the human embryo may divide to form monozygotic twins shows that there cannot be a human organism present until fourteen days after fertilisation, when the possibility of twinning has ceased. For, if we suppose that the embryo is an organism and twinning does occur, there is no explanation of what happens to the organism. It makes no sense to suppose that the original organism survives as only one of the twins, for the relation that it bears to each twin is exactly the same. Nor is it coherent to suppose that the original organism is identical with both twins, for that would imply that the twins are identical to each other--that is, that they are not distinct but are one thing. Finally, it would be odd to claim that the original organism has died, for it leaves "no earthly remains".[2] So, it is claimed, it is best to accept that, prior to twinning, there was no organism there at all but merely a cell or collection of cells.

so in the initial division the single cell ceases to exist and is supplanted by its two qualitatively identical daughter cells. Similarly, when each of the daughter cells divides, it ceases to exist and is replaced by its own two qualitatively identical daughter cells. Again, there is nothing--no individual--that persists through these transformations. Only when the cells begin to be differentiated, to take on specialised functions, and to be organised together in an integrated way do they together constitute a further individual: an organism.

If this is right, to kill a human embryo during the first fourteen days after fertilisation is not to kill one of us but to prevent one of us from existing.

In summary, although it is not unreasonable to believe that an organism begins to exist at fertilisation, it is more plausible to suppose that a human organism does not begin to exist until about fourteen days after fertilisation. If an organism does not exist until a fortnight after conception, and if we are organisms, then to kill an embryo prior to that point would not be to kill one of us but would merely be to prevent one of us from existing.

Take that for what you will and read the whole article if you want a more details.

[Pylis]

It's funny how you never hear a pregnant woman say, "I felt the fetus kick today!"

[dafoomie]

My view on this is that its ok before the 7th month. In the 6th month, the neocortex begins to form, and in the 7th month, it begins to attach to the brain and function. The neocortex is what separates us from animals, its responsible for our consciousness. If you can think, and you are aware, then I consider you alive. If you don't have the capacity for consciousness, I don't consider you alive yet. Right now, you can begin to live outside of the womb around the 6th month (or 5th, but odds are against you), inside a neonatal intensive care unit. I still don't consider them alive yet, but if its already outside of the womb, it would be wrong to kill, there would be no need.

And let me say that its very, very, very easy for a man to say that rape victims can't have abortions (I'm a guy btw). Its very easy to make blanket statements like that about things you'll never have to deal with yourself. Yes, you could know someone, but that is not even close to being the same, most guys can not even grasp what being raped is like. Also, I can respect the opinion that the father of the child should have some say if its aborted or not, however, I feel the decision is entirely up to the mother. She's the one carrying it, shes the one that will have to deal with it, not you.

I don't want to hear statements such as, you get a soul upon fertilization, therefore its wrong to abort at any time. That is a matter of your religion, and while I respect your opinion, it would also be trying to enforce your religious views on others, which is wrong.

And thank god that the neo-conservatives don't have control over our country, otherwise we'd live in a very backwards society where you're not allowed to have abortions for even rape or incest, there would be all kinds of dangerous back alley abortions going on for the poor, the rich could afford to have it done quietly and professionally, and where you're persecuted for being a single or young mother. So, if you were raped, you'd be not only forced to carry the child, you'd be persecuted for not marrying the rapist afterwards. Is this the society you want?

[elprincipe]

Right now, you can begin to live outside of the womb around the 6th month (or 5th, but odds are against you), inside a neonatal intensive care unit. I still don't consider them alive yet, but if its already outside of the womb, it would be wrong to kill, there would be no need.

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.

And let me say that its very, very, very easy for a man to say that rape victims can't have abortions (I'm a guy btw). Its very easy to make blanket statements like that about things you'll never have to deal with yourself. Yes, you could know someone, but that is not even close to being the same, most guys can not even grasp what being raped is like. Also, I can respect the opinion that the father of the child should have some say if its aborted or not, however, I feel the decision is entirely up to the mother. She's the one carrying it, shes the one that will have to deal with it, not you.

Sure it's easier for a guy in that situation, no doubt about that. However, if you logically feel that abortion is the same as killing someone, which I do, taking that to conclusion I feel that just because (I know rape is not a "just because" kind of thing, but I can't think of a better turn of phrase there) you were raped doesn't give you a license to kill a baby or anyone for that matter. Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.

I don't want to hear statements such as, you get a soul upon fertilization, therefore its wrong to abort at any time. That is a matter of your religion, and while I respect your opinion, it would also be trying to enforce your religious views on others, which is wrong.

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.

And thank god that the neo-conservatives don't have control over our country, otherwise we'd live in a very backwards society where you're not allowed to have abortions for even rape or incest, there would be all kinds of dangerous back alley abortions going on for the poor, the rich could afford to have it done quietly and professionally, and where you're persecuted for being a single or young mother. So, if you were raped, you'd be not only forced to carry the child, you'd be persecuted for not marrying the rapist afterwards. Is this the society you want?

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them. Again you are putting words in my (or someone else's, not sure who you're talking to) mouth. Rape is a serious crime and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and persecuting someone for being single or a young mother ( :? ) is certainly nothing I've ever indicated being in favor of. This is a passionate enough issue already for me without people trying to twist my words or put ones in my mouth. Let's deal with what actually has been said and try to be civil, please.

[dafoomie]

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.
I don't make a distinction. Its simply pointless to kill it once its outside the womb, because the purpose of the abortion is already done.

Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.
Can you make your beliefs a little clearer? Do you believe that it would be murder from the second of conception? And if so, based on what? I probably won't be able to reason with you if you do, because your opinion is probably based on your faith rather than logic.

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.
There are people that believe that killing animals is murder. Surely you don't want them imposing their beliefs on you. I don't want to hear an argument based on religion or a soul because there can be no reasoning with it, and we can not have laws based on religious beliefs.

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them.
I'm not saying you do, or that its your argument. But in an ultra neo-conservative world, this would be the scenario in which we live, based in part on Dick Cheney's and Dan Quayle's (and many others) stances.

Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization is murder? It involves destruction of fertilized embryos. Would you ban it?

[eldad9]

Another thing I don't get about this "abortion is murder": if person A cannot survive without being inside person B, then person B removing person A from B's body is called murder. What if person A isn't in person B in the first place? Then does B's refusal to have A put inside her constitute murder?

What if A was originally placed in person B without her consent?

[dafoomie]

My problem with the life begins at conception argument, is that 80% of all fertilized embryos abort naturally. Shouldn't there be a concern for the 4 out of 5 that die naturally, which in a year is a far greater number than all of the abortions in the history of the world?

For some people this is where god and religion come into play, and this is where it gets dicey to debate the issue.

[Ruined]

Nah, I think just partial birth abortions, which are nasty to say the least, should be banned. Bush most definitely is not a hardcore conservative, he wouldnt go the full 9 yards on abortion in general.

[sblymnlcrymnl]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Brings to mind bullshit hate crime legislation ... as if the reason has anything to do with how wrong it is.
I don't give a shit about abortion one way or the other, by the way.

[Duo_Maxwell]

My problem with the life begins at conception argument, is that 80% of all fertilized embryos abort naturally. Shouldn't there be a concern for the 4 out of 5 that die naturally, which in a year is a far greater number than all of the abortions in the history of the world?

For some people this is where god and religion come into play, and this is where it gets dicey to debate the issue.

Well I don't think that plays much into the argument, at least not IMO. This is because it's an act of nature, one more religious could even say act of God will's should they be so inclined. Either way the hand of man isn't coming into play here. I mean nobody is trying to place a ban on having miscarriages.

Also I see alot people making the argument about rape cases. And my personal belief somewhat agrees with you all, but I'm going to stick my neck out here to argue a point though, and I do realize that rape is a topic that calls for great sensitivity because somehow we all unfortunately are clsoe to someone who was once a victim. So I hope no one takes offense to what I say because believe me when I say that it is not what I intended. Also, I'll say upfront that these numbers I'm referencing are from memory when I reasearched the topic a couple years ago, so feel free to look up some new numbers as these may be off now. That said, if I remember correctly those types of cases hardly even make up 5% of abortion cases. And at the risk of sounding like an unfeeling asshole (Hope that's how nobody sees it), also pregnancy in rape cases is very low, about 1 in 2000 victims. And, if all rape victims were to recieve medical treatment afterwards pregnancy can be avoided in all those cases. That said I realize given the nature and circumstances of rape cases this won't happen. Then there's one study where it did ask the question of pregnant rape victims and about 80% said that would not have an abortion. Make of that one what you will. Finally, there's the slippery slope to consider that if it's made legal to abort an unwanted pregnancy for just one reason like rape you will inevitably be faced with many people presenting the case that they should be able to abort the unwanted pregnancy as well even if it's for a different reason. As another personal point, I want to say that rapists are the lowest of the low and I think we should consider much harsher sentences for them. My point after all that is that it is quite difficult to have abortion just for rapes cases, but then does that mean we should have abortion for all to include just that set? I can't and won't answer that question for everyone else, but it's just some info and questions to keep in mind when referencing rape to abortion.

[evilmax17]

If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!

If a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father, elprincipe is still against abortion in this case. In his statement, he seems to completely disregard the health (both mentally and physically) for the mother. These are both very vital issues, and at which point does the well-being of the zygote outweigh the wellbeing of the 12 year old girl?

Also, being the product of incest, the probability that this zygote would grow to be a severely deformed fetus is high. It would be irresponsible to let these few cells develop into a child that would be severely deformed, in addition to growing up in a violent and unstable household.

The rights of a human being greatly outweigh the rights of a cell-growth, and the people who try to dispute that are out of their gords. It doesn't matter what that cell-growth will grow into IN THE FUTURE, it's a CELL GROWTH now!

[Duo_Maxwell]

If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!


No offense, but nobody will deal with that analogy because it's the worst analogy ever. How is incubation even a comparison to blending? Wouldn't fertalization make more sense there? By that analogy incubation would be like pouring it in a glass or something, hell I don't even know. The rest of your post makes good sense but that analogy is just weird.

[evilmax17]

I want to add something. I'm not advocating the willy-nilly use of abortions, but they should definately be available as the means of a last resort. I'm sure there are women out there that have had 5 abortions, and use it as their only means of contraception, but I don't believe that this is your stereotypical abortion patient. There are always going to be people who abuse things that are meant for good.

If you have a woman who gets abortions every other month, I would have to use this fact to judge her character. If she didn't have an abortion, would you really want somebody like that raising a child anyway? Hell, there are so many instances of children being raised by crappy parents who didn't even want kids in the first place, and as the product of that environment, these kids grow up to be criminals.

Now I'm not saying "Judge the parents and kill the kids if they're bad", but if a woman doesn't think she'd be responsible enough to raise a child, abortion will help prevent another criminal from being raised. And you're NOT KILLING A PERSON OR A CHILD via abortion. If it doesn't have a brain or a heartbeat, it isn't alive (unless it's a tree).

About adoption: the problem with this is that once pregnant, the mother might have second thoughts, or may be made to keep it because of family pressure. Then, the cycle begins again, as an unfit mother begins to raise a child.

[evilmax17]

If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!


No offense, but nobody will deal with that analogy because it's the worst analogy ever. How is incubation even a comparison to blending? Wouldn't fertalization make more sense there? By that analogy incubation would be like pouring it in a glass or something, hell I don't even know. The rest of your post makes good sense but that analogy is just weird.

I wanted a milkshake :cry:

[Duo_Maxwell]

This is true, a milkshake does sound rather tasty, yet now that we've compared it to abortion and fetuses and such I'll pass for now.

[Drocket]

That is probably the single most bizarre analogy I've ever read.

[elprincipe]

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.
I don't make a distinction. Its simply pointless to kill it once its outside the womb, because the purpose of the abortion is already done.

So in other words, you don't feel it's wrong to kill a child, since there is no difference between a child who is killed in the womb and one who is killed outside the womb. Quite revealing.

Surely you must realize that this is just a logical conclusion from the thought that you are killing a baby when you have an abortion.
Can you make your beliefs a little clearer? Do you believe that it would be murder from the second of conception? And if so, based on what? I probably won't be able to reason with you if you do, because your opinion is probably based on your faith rather than logic.

Nope, based purely on logic. You can re-read what I wrote above for my clear opinion.

I don't see the logic of this argument. If you think abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you try to stop it? Someone's being deprived of their life at someone else's direction, a far cry from something like adultery.
There are people that believe that killing animals is murder. Surely you don't want them imposing their beliefs on you. I don't want to hear an argument based on religion or a soul because there can be no reasoning with it, and we can not have laws based on religious beliefs.

Doesn't have anything to do with religion. Murdering people is wrong and not only that, it's against the law. Therefore, every citizen has a responsibility to try to prevent it from happening.

Obviously I never said I'd like to force people to marry those who raped them.
I'm not saying you do, or that its your argument. But in an ultra neo-conservative world, this would be the scenario in which we live, based in part on Dick Cheney's and Dan Quayle's (and many others) stances.

Let me pose a question to you. Do you believe that in vitro fertilization is murder? It involves destruction of fertilized embryos. Would you ban it?

I'm not a neocon, but I still would disagree with your characterization of those people.

In vitro involves destruction of fertilized embryos, but those embroys were never implanted and they never began to grow. Therefore, they were just potential lives rather than actual lives. Again, re-read what I wrote above and you would already know my answer to this question.

[elprincipe]

Another thing I don't get about this "abortion is murder": if person A cannot survive without being inside person B, then person B removing person A from B's body is called murder. What if person A isn't in person B in the first place? Then does B's refusal to have A put inside her constitute murder?

Since this doesn't happen, what's the difference?

What if A was originally placed in person B without her consent?

Murder is murder. Does it matter if there are other circumstances? Abortion is not self-defense, nor is it by accident. It's the intentional killing of a baby. You can rationalize all you want that since someone's been wronged they then have some right to kill someone, but that's the same as saying it would be okay to kill your cheating spouse, for example.

[elprincipe]

If I put 2 scoops of icecream and some milk into a blender, it isn't considered a milkshake even though it has all of the vital parts of one. It is not until that concoction is blended (or in the case of a fetus, incubated), that it becomes a milkshake (or in this case, person). Deal with that analogy!

Faulty analogy. A more correct one would be a small amount of milkshake growing into a larger amount. And yes, the small amount is still a milkshake.

If a 12 year old girl is raped and impregnated by her father, elprincipe is still against abortion in this case. In his statement, he seems to completely disregard the health (both mentally and physically) for the mother. These are both very vital issues, and at which point does the well-being of the zygote outweigh the wellbeing of the 12 year old girl?

Not disregarding health at all. Obviously, if someone's life is threatened that is a more difficult case because this issue is all about life or death. Someone's inconvenience or injury, physical and/or mental, is of course a matter of concern, but we're weighing it against someone being killed. There's no contest there if you ask me.

Also, being the product of incest, the probability that this zygote would grow to be a severely deformed fetus is high. It would be irresponsible to let these few cells develop into a child that would be severely deformed, in addition to growing up in a violent and unstable household.

The rights of a human being greatly outweigh the rights of a cell-growth, and the people who try to dispute that are out of their gords. It doesn't matter what that cell-growth will grow into IN THE FUTURE, it's a CELL GROWTH now!

You're just wrong. Random cell growth is not born as a baby human. This issue has nothing to do with "cell growth", but is about human life and death.

[elprincipe]

Another thing evilmax, why not have unlimited abortions if they aren't killing? I mean, if it's just some unwanted cell growth, what's the difference? Although I applaud any opinion that less abortions is a good thing, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.

[Quackzilla]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad fucked you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

[elprincipe]

You mean "illegal". not constitutional.

And to all your "abortion is murder" types - I'd like to talk to you about this subject after your thirteen year old girl gets raped and impregnated.

Guess I'll respond to this too. Are you saying that if a child is conceived via rape than he/she is less of a child? If you are making such a stupid argument, what about other, non-natural ways of creating a child? Does that make he/she less of a child? Of course not.

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

You weren't involved here, thank goodness, but whatever. I never commented on life-threatening incidences. Those are a special case because it is quite difficult to choose between one life and another. In such a case, where the mother is likely to die, I would say the mother would have to make a decision since the baby obviously can't.

[evilmax17]

Elpricipe, your comment on my milkshake analogy is wrong. You said that it would be more akin to a little amount of milkshake in the glass, and that it was still a milkshake. Well if you look at the milkshake in the glass, it would look, taste, and smell exactly like the full glass of milkshake.

In person/baby terms, this does not equate. The zygote/fetus that would be aborted does not resemble a baby/human in any regard (unless it is late in the gestation process). It's not as if you have a tiny tiny person, that just increases in size with age (regarding my milkshake analogy). If at the moment of conception, a microscopic human with arms legs eyes brain heart was formed, I would agree with you. But this is not the case, a few cells together are formed. I could cough up a loogie that has more cells than a fetus being aborted.

The problem with all of your analyzation Elprincipe, is that all of your backings revolve around the OPINION that human life begins at conception, and that this conceived "lifeform" has as equal rights and importance as a full grown human. It's like talking to a PETA advocate, who would tell you that a chicken would have as many rights as a human being.

-------------------------------------

I don't see why everybody has to have ONE set guideline for determining when life begins. Why not have a multi-pronged aproach to the matter. Here's my view on when "human life" begins:

CONDITION 1: If you have been physically born, you are to be considdered a human being. Regardless of being born early, and regardless of method of delivery.

CONDITION 2: If you are in the third trimester, and closely enough resemble the baby that you will eventually be born as. -OR- If you have all of the vital organs that a human being needs to survive, and they are in working condition (or 'should be' given the gestation time, in the case of abnormalities and defects).

[dafoomie]

So in other words, you don't feel it's wrong to kill a child, since there is no difference between a child who is killed in the womb and one who is killed outside the womb. Quite revealing.
And you whine about words being put in your mouth. I don't consider a fetus before the 6th or 7th month to be a person. If a fetus is outside of the womb and in a neo-natal intensive care unit, where it can grow into a person, then why bother killing it? The purpose of abortion is not simply to kill a fetus, it is to discontinue carrying it. Once its out of the womb its no longer necessary.

Nope, based purely on logic. You can re-read what I wrote above for my clear opinion.
You have never stated a clear, concise opinion. What I can glean from your posts is, you believe that an embryo is a person when its fetilized and will then become a person. Why?

In vitro involves destruction of fertilized embryos, but those embroys were never implanted and they never began to grow. Therefore, they were just potential lives rather than actual lives. Again, re-read what I wrote above and you would already know my answer to this question.
Again, why? Whats the difference between an embryo at this point in the womb and one at this point in a test tube, at the same point in the pregnancy? One of the ones in the test tube will be implanted in the womb, and the rest discarded. Why do you make a distinction? Whats the difference? This is an illogical position to take. They do grow in the laboratory.

I'm going to ask you again. I would like you to state why you believe it is murder to abort an embryo, is it murder as soon as its fertilized, and if not, when? And what about the 80% of fetilized embryos that abort naturally? At least half of them otherwise completely normal embryos?

Your opinion is not based on logic, its based on emotion. You believe that abortion is killing a little person. Its not. An embryo in the lab is the same as an embryo in a person.

[elprincipe]

I'd love to keep arguing with you guys, if I have the time. I did have some time this morning and that was good enough for a few posts. Having to respond to several different lengthy posts is usually beyond my time capacity, however. I'll try maybe if I get some more time sometime soon. Just wanted to post this so you don't feel I'm not responding to your points.

[Quackzilla]

lol, you admit defeat. okay, bye.

[Duo_Maxwell]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

Funny I was unaware of this unwritten law of nature that saws girls age 14 and under will die in childbirth. It's certainly dangerous but it's not like birthing around age 14 or under hasn't happened. Also, the scenario you gave is ridiculous because abortion discussions aside, any licesnsed doctor will tell you that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child when it comes to complications during child birth. If there are extreme life trheatening circumstances the doctor isn't just goign to sit around and see whether or not the young mother would die when in labor. Even if abortion as we know it is at sometime abolished you'll likely never see your letting a 13 yr old girl die scenario happen.

[Quackzilla]

Unfortunately, the extreme right dows not see it that way.

In that situation, John Ashcroft, the attourny general, believes that the girl should die.

[elprincipe]

lol, you admit defeat. okay, bye.

Wow you're an ass. Some people have jobs you know. Dumbass.

[elprincipe]

I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

The problem with all of your analyzation Elprincipe, is that all of your backings revolve around the OPINION that human life begins at conception, and that this conceived "lifeform" has as equal rights and importance as a full grown human. It's like talking to a PETA advocate, who would tell you that a chicken would have as many rights as a human being.

Nope, not opinion. How do you decide when human life begins? Well, we all agree that a baby that is born is a human being (I hope). Does coming outside the womb suddenly make the baby a human being, whereas being inside he/she is not? That doesn' t seem to make sense. What about at the third or second trimester? Again, that's just a random cut-off point having nothing to do with the baby's actual development. The answer is that you can't point to any point after the baby has begun to grow that you can say at one second he/she is not a human baby and at the next second he/she is, other than just randomness. Therefore, if you believe that a baby who is born is human, you must believe that a baby that has already begun to grow is also human, at least that's the way I see it logically.

[elprincipe]

Unfortunately, the extreme right dows not see it that way.

In that situation, John Ashcroft, the attourny general, believes that the girl should die.

Yes, John Ashcroft is the devil incarnate and wants young girls to die. :roll:

[E-Z-B]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

Funny I was unaware of this unwritten law of nature that saws girls age 14 and under will die in childbirth. It's certainly dangerous but it's not like birthing around age 14 or under hasn't happened. Also, the scenario you gave is ridiculous because abortion discussions aside, any licesnsed doctor will tell you that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child when it comes to complications during child birth. If there are extreme life trheatening circumstances the doctor isn't just goign to sit around and see whether or not the young mother would die when in labor. Even if abortion as we know it is at sometime abolished you'll likely never see your letting a 13 yr old girl die scenario happen.

I wish the Bush administration saw it that way. They're too busy slamming Kerry for voting against the partial birth abortion ban. Why did Kerry vote against it? Because it didn't protect the mother if her life was threatened. That's proof that the Bush admininstration doesn't care about the life of the mother.

[E-Z-B]

I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

The problem with all of your analyzation Elprincipe, is that all of your backings revolve around the OPINION that human life begins at conception, and that this conceived "lifeform" has as equal rights and importance as a full grown human. It's like talking to a PETA advocate, who would tell you that a chicken would have as many rights as a human being.

Nope, not opinion. How do you decide when human life begins? Well, we all agree that a baby that is born is a human being (I hope). Does coming outside the womb suddenly make the baby a human being, whereas being inside he/she is not? That doesn' t seem to make sense. What about at the third or second trimester? Again, that's just a random cut-off point having nothing to do with the baby's actual development. The answer is that you can't point to any point after the baby has begun to grow that you can say at one second he/she is not a human baby and at the next second he/she is, other than just randomness. Therefore, if you believe that a baby who is born is human, you must believe that a baby that has already begun to grow is also human, at least that's the way I see it logically.

Suppose you're building a house. You dig out a hole, poor the foundation, and suddenly stop. Is it a house now?

[elprincipe]

So in other words, you don't feel it's wrong to kill a child, since there is no difference between a child who is killed in the womb and one who is killed outside the womb. Quite revealing.
And you whine about words being put in your mouth. I don't consider a fetus before the 6th or 7th month to be a person. If a fetus is outside of the womb and in a neo-natal intensive care unit, where it can grow into a person, then why bother killing it? The purpose of abortion is not simply to kill a fetus, it is to discontinue carrying it. Once its out of the womb its no longer necessary.

Just to be clear, here's what you wrote:

I still don't understand why you all have this random distinction between a baby inside the womb and without. I don't see why that makes any difference between being a baby or not. Anyone have just one good argument for that? I've yet to hear one.
I don't make a distinction. Its simply pointless to kill it once its outside the womb, because the purpose of the abortion is already done.

You say you make no distinction between a baby in the womb and a baby outside of the womb, yet you feel it okay to kill a baby inside the womb. Therefore, you must think it okay to kill a baby outside the womb because they are the same. Or perhaps you would like to reword that statement, maybe you didn't mean it that way.

In response to your "not a person before the 6th or 7th month" comment, I would refer you to my post a couple posts above this one.

Nope, based purely on logic. You can re-read what I wrote above for my clear opinion.
You have never stated a clear, concise opinion. What I can glean from your posts is, you believe that an embryo is a person when its fetilized and will then become a person. Why?

Here's what I wrote again. I can't be clearer as it's already quite simple.

So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?

When an egg is successfully fertilized and implanted so that it is at the point where, if left alone, it will eventually be born as a human infant, yes, that is a person.

In vitro involves destruction of fertilized embryos, but those embroys were never implanted and they never began to grow. Therefore, they were just potential lives rather than actual lives. Again, re-read what I wrote above and you would already know my answer to this question.
Again, why? Whats the difference between an embryo at this point in the womb and one at this point in a test tube, at the same point in the pregnancy? One of the ones in the test tube will be implanted in the womb, and the rest discarded. Why do you make a distinction? Whats the difference? This is an illogical position to take. They do grow in the laboratory.

I'm going to ask you again. I would like you to state why you believe it is murder to abort an embryo, is it murder as soon as its fertilized, and if not, when? And what about the 80% of fetilized embryos that abort naturally? At least half of them otherwise completely normal embryos?

Your opinion is not based on logic, its based on emotion. You believe that abortion is killing a little person. Its not. An embryo in the lab is the same as an embryo in a person.[/quote]

As you read just above this, I disagree. An embryo in a test tube is not implanted into an environment where it can possibly undertake its growth, so it's just a fertilized egg at that point. Abortion is killing a little person. I think I'll probably have to dig up some not-so-nice pictures of the practice y'all are defending to see if you really know as much about it as I do.

[elprincipe]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

Funny I was unaware of this unwritten law of nature that saws girls age 14 and under will die in childbirth. It's certainly dangerous but it's not like birthing around age 14 or under hasn't happened. Also, the scenario you gave is ridiculous because abortion discussions aside, any licesnsed doctor will tell you that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child when it comes to complications during child birth. If there are extreme life trheatening circumstances the doctor isn't just goign to sit around and see whether or not the young mother would die when in labor. Even if abortion as we know it is at sometime abolished you'll likely never see your letting a 13 yr old girl die scenario happen.

I wish the Bush administration saw it that way. They're too busy slamming Kerry for voting against the partial birth abortion ban. Why did Kerry vote against it? Because it didn't protect the mother if her life was threatened. That's proof that the Bush admininstration doesn't care about the life of the mother.

That's just not true. According to the American Medical Association, partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, so why have an exception for the life of the mother? The only reason was to let doctors claim "adverse heath effects" whenever they wanted to do them, thereby circumventing the ban.

[elprincipe]

I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

The problem with all of your analyzation Elprincipe, is that all of your backings revolve around the OPINION that human life begins at conception, and that this conceived "lifeform" has as equal rights and importance as a full grown human. It's like talking to a PETA advocate, who would tell you that a chicken would have as many rights as a human being.

Nope, not opinion. How do you decide when human life begins? Well, we all agree that a baby that is born is a human being (I hope). Does coming outside the womb suddenly make the baby a human being, whereas being inside he/she is not? That doesn' t seem to make sense. What about at the third or second trimester? Again, that's just a random cut-off point having nothing to do with the baby's actual development. The answer is that you can't point to any point after the baby has begun to grow that you can say at one second he/she is not a human baby and at the next second he/she is, other than just randomness. Therefore, if you believe that a baby who is born is human, you must believe that a baby that has already begun to grow is also human, at least that's the way I see it logically.

Suppose you're building a house. You dig out a hole, poor the foundation, and suddenly stop. Is it a house now?

Analogies are a poor way of trying to prove something. Try facts.

[E-Z-B]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

[elprincipe]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

[Backlash]

Abortion is killing a little person.

Ok. And a tiny cluster of cells that will eventually grow into a person is not a person yet.

As someone said, it's not like upon fertilization a very tiny complete human being is created, who then just grows bigger. It is a cluster of cells that has no self-awareness or ability to live on its own.

I assume you are also a vegetarian? I mean, how can you claim that a tiny cluster of cells (8 or 16?) has more rights than a fully alive cow or chicken?

[E-Z-B]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

[E-Z-B]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

Funny I was unaware of this unwritten law of nature that saws girls age 14 and under will die in childbirth. It's certainly dangerous but it's not like birthing around age 14 or under hasn't happened. Also, the scenario you gave is ridiculous because abortion discussions aside, any licesnsed doctor will tell you that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child when it comes to complications during child birth. If there are extreme life trheatening circumstances the doctor isn't just goign to sit around and see whether or not the young mother would die when in labor. Even if abortion as we know it is at sometime abolished you'll likely never see your letting a 13 yr old girl die scenario happen.

I wish the Bush administration saw it that way. They're too busy slamming Kerry for voting against the partial birth abortion ban. Why did Kerry vote against it? Because it didn't protect the mother if her life was threatened. That's proof that the Bush admininstration doesn't care about the life of the mother.

That's just not true. According to the American Medical Association, partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, so why have an exception for the life of the mother? The only reason was to let doctors claim "adverse heath effects" whenever they wanted to do them, thereby circumventing the ban.

Where's your proof? The child could suddenly cause the mother's blood pressure to spike, affecting the mother's health. This is an example of why Kerry didn't sign that law.

[coffman]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

[elprincipe]

Abortion is killing a little person.

Ok. And a tiny cluster of cells that will eventually grow into a person is not a person yet.

As someone said, it's not like upon fertilization a very tiny complete human being is created, who then just grows bigger. It is a cluster of cells that has no self-awareness or ability to live on its own.

I assume you are also a vegetarian? I mean, how can you claim that a tiny cluster of cells (8 or 16?) has more rights than a fully alive cow or chicken?

Nope, definitely not a vegetarian. Non-human animals have no more rights than plants. It's a human-eat-animal world out there.

[elprincipe]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.

[elprincipe]

What the compassionate conservative seems to be avoiding is the FACT that a girl under the age of 14 will DIE during childbirth, even with surgery, if the baby is to be saved.

Would you tell a little girl "Your dad shaq-fued you, but since you have had your period, and have become pregnant, you are going to be in a lot of continually increasing pain for the next 6-8 months before we cut a baby out of your stomach. You will most likely die."

Funny I was unaware of this unwritten law of nature that saws girls age 14 and under will die in childbirth. It's certainly dangerous but it's not like birthing around age 14 or under hasn't happened. Also, the scenario you gave is ridiculous because abortion discussions aside, any licesnsed doctor will tell you that the life of the mother comes before the life of the child when it comes to complications during child birth. If there are extreme life trheatening circumstances the doctor isn't just goign to sit around and see whether or not the young mother would die when in labor. Even if abortion as we know it is at sometime abolished you'll likely never see your letting a 13 yr old girl die scenario happen.

I wish the Bush administration saw it that way. They're too busy slamming Kerry for voting against the partial birth abortion ban. Why did Kerry vote against it? Because it didn't protect the mother if her life was threatened. That's proof that the Bush admininstration doesn't care about the life of the mother.

That's just not true. According to the American Medical Association, partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary, so why have an exception for the life of the mother? The only reason was to let doctors claim "adverse heath effects" whenever they wanted to do them, thereby circumventing the ban.

Where's your proof? The child could suddenly cause the mother's blood pressure to spike, affecting the mother's health. This is an example of why Kerry didn't sign that law.

I'll do a search when I get the chance. The AMA has said this, I know it. I'll get back to you.

[elprincipe]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

[Backlash]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

Definitely. Sex education and making birth control available are definitely key to helping the problem. However, there will still be unwanted pregnancies - that is reality.

[E-Z-B]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.

Then what is your point?

[RedvsBlue]

Wait you mean its legal right now? Oh what a relief, I need to give my girlfriend a call.

Sorry bad joke and bad humor, oh well maybe it will lighten up the mood of this argument.

[MrBadExample]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

Why exactly do the parents get to decide where and when their children learn about sex? Parents don't decide when children learn to read or do math. The problem is that a lot of the same people who are deadset against any abortion are also against any form of sex education in the public schools. There are age-specific curiculums that can be followed. It shouldn't be an issue for the hysterical (and very vocal) parents to decide for everyone else.

[Quackzilla]

I know how to make amino acids our of water, carbon dioxide, electricity, and various other elements.

I have even seen it happen.

So, according to republican logic, we should not eat or drink, or even use electricity, because they have the potential to form a "primordial soup" which is the origin of all life on earth including human life.

Well?

[Backlash]

No, he already said if it's not inside a woman it doesn't count. Plus you're being a little ridiculous.

[mcwilliams132]

It won't be banned...yet...but I wish is would be...

"if you're not pregnant...it's not a baby"

[elprincipe]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.

Then what is your point?

I should have said question. Just read the question I wrote above, try to answer, and try to make sense with your answer.

[elprincipe]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

Why exactly do the parents get to decide where and when their children learn about sex? Parents don't decide when children learn to read or do math. The problem is that a lot of the same people who are deadset against any abortion are also against any form of sex education in the public schools. There are age-specific curiculums that can be followed. It shouldn't be an issue for the hysterical (and very vocal) parents to decide for everyone else.

Because parents generally have the right to raise their children the way they see fit. The less government interference in this the better, quite frankly. I guess you wouldn't mind if your 5-year-old was being taught about oral sex or something, but I and the vast majority of the country do.

[elprincipe]

No, he already said if it's not inside a woman it doesn't count. Plus you're being a little ridiculous.

Come on, just a little? :wink:

[E-Z-B]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.

Then what is your point?

I should have said question. Just read the question I wrote above, try to answer, and try to make sense with your answer.

I'll make sense with my answer once you make sense with your question.

[elprincipe]

When the baby is capable of surviving outside the mother's womb, then it is a human being. If the baby can't it's still not an individual.

I've dealt with this strange opinion earlier in this topic. Medicine is getting better and better at helping babies to survive earlier and earlier. Does that mean that who is and isn't human changes as medical science advances?

So then let's take that cluster of cells out of the mother and let it grow on its own since you claim that science is so great.

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.

Then what is your point?

I should have said question. Just read the question I wrote above, try to answer, and try to make sense with your answer.

I'll make sense with my answer once you make sense with your question.

Why do you believe that at different points in history and in the future a fetus becomes a human at a different point in a pregnancy? According to your stated opinion, a baby who is 8 months in the womb wouldn't be human in 1000 BC but is human in 2004. Why? That doesn't make any sense at all.

[MrBadExample]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

Why exactly do the parents get to decide where and when their children learn about sex? Parents don't decide when children learn to read or do math. The problem is that a lot of the same people who are deadset against any abortion are also against any form of sex education in the public schools. There are age-specific curiculums that can be followed. It shouldn't be an issue for the hysterical (and very vocal) parents to decide for everyone else.

Because parents generally have the right to raise their children the way they see fit. The less government interference in this the better, quite frankly. I guess you wouldn't mind if your 5-year-old was being taught about oral sex or something, but I and the vast majority of the country do.

But you don't have a right to not have your child educated. And apparently you missed the part about age-specific curicculum. You don't teach 1st graders calculus either.

[elprincipe]

The best way to stop abortion is to stop unwanted pregnacies. This country is still in the dark ages when it comes to sex education. Making birth control easier to obtain as well as cheaper would go a long way towards reducing the number of abortions.

Good point and I agree, so long as the sex education is done in a sensible manner that includes letting parents decide when and where their child learns these things. Stopping unwanted pregnancies is certainly something we all can agree should be a goal.

Why exactly do the parents get to decide where and when their children learn about sex? Parents don't decide when children learn to read or do math. The problem is that a lot of the same people who are deadset against any abortion are also against any form of sex education in the public schools. There are age-specific curiculums that can be followed. It shouldn't be an issue for the hysterical (and very vocal) parents to decide for everyone else.

Because parents generally have the right to raise their children the way they see fit. The less government interference in this the better, quite frankly. I guess you wouldn't mind if your 5-year-old was being taught about oral sex or something, but I and the vast majority of the country do.

But you don't have a right to not have your child educated. And apparently you missed the part about age-specific curicculum. You don't teach 1st graders calculus either.

In this area, I'd say the parents have every right to determine when their child is educated...especially since it has a lot to do with religious beliefs.

[MrBadExample]

In this area, I'd say the parents have every right to determine when their child is educated...especially since it has a lot to do with religious beliefs.

Biology should have nothing to do with religious beliefs. They are not teaching kids how to have sex; they are teaching them how to avoid pregnancy and disease. It's the people who want to make it a religious issue that are the problem. There is always private school or home schooling if you are that opposed to learning in public schools.

[elprincipe]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this bit about the American Medical Association (and others) saying that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary for the folks who didn't believe me.

Medical Necessity Hundreds of ob-gyns and fetal/maternal specialists, along with former Surgeon General Koop have come forward to unequivocally state that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility.” In fact, the procedure can significantly threaten a mother’s health or ability to carry future children to term. The American Medical Association has said the procedure is “not good medicine” and is “not medically indicated” in any situation.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:8sWQrt6chSIJ:johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Chabot21803.doc+%22american+medical+association%22 +abortion+%22never+medically+necessary%22&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.

[MrBadExample]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.


I don't think someone's personal religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the public health and that is what sex education is about.

[elprincipe]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.


I don't think someone's personal religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the public health and that is what sex education is about.

Where would you draw the line?

[MrBadExample]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.


I don't think someone's personal religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the public health and that is what sex education is about.

Where would you draw the line?

If you don't want to have your children learn sex education, you can opt them out of the class. They could go to the library or study hall. But parents should not have the ability to force the rest of the school system to give in to their religious views.

Religion should not be used as a basis for determining the curicculum. That's what church is for.

[E-Z-B]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this bit about the American Medical Association (and others) saying that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary for the folks who didn't believe me.

Medical Necessity Hundreds of ob-gyns and fetal/maternal specialists, along with former Surgeon General Koop have come forward to unequivocally state that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility.” In fact, the procedure can significantly threaten a mother’s health or ability to carry future children to term. The American Medical Association has said the procedure is “not good medicine” and is “not medically indicated” in any situation.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:8sWQrt6chSIJ:johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Chabot21803.doc+%22american+medical+association%22 +abortion+%22never+medically+necessary%22&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.

Sorry, but your link to that website still doesn't provide proof that a mother's life is in no way endangered. A friend of mine had her blood pressure suddenly spiked late in her pregnancy. Luckily, she was about due anyway, so it wasn't a problem to induce the pregancy and deliver the child. Suppose it happened at 6 months? Is it worth losing the child AND the mother? Isn't it logical to at least save the mother in hopes that she could someday deliver another child? Of course not, according to Dubya.

[elprincipe]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.


I don't think someone's personal religious beliefs should be allowed to interfere with the public health and that is what sex education is about.

Where would you draw the line?

If you don't want to have your children learn sex education, you can opt them out of the class. They could go to the library or study hall. But parents should not have the ability to force the rest of the school system to give in to their religious views.

Religion should not be used as a basis for determining the curicculum. That's what church is for.

Of course and fair enough. I thought you were saying that kids would be forced into these classes without their parents' permission.

[elprincipe]

I think there needs to be a balance, MBE, and if you think sex education has nothing to do with anything other than biology then you don't know much about most people's religious beliefs.

Anyway, I thought I'd share this bit about the American Medical Association (and others) saying that partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary for the folks who didn't believe me.

Medical Necessity Hundreds of ob-gyns and fetal/maternal specialists, along with former Surgeon General Koop have come forward to unequivocally state that “partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother’s health or her future fertility.” In fact, the procedure can significantly threaten a mother’s health or ability to carry future children to term. The American Medical Association has said the procedure is “not good medicine” and is “not medically indicated” in any situation.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:8sWQrt6chSIJ:johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/Chabot21803.doc+%22american+medical+association%22 +abortion+%22never+medically+necessary%22&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.

Sorry, but your link to that website still doesn't provide proof that a mother's life is in no way endangered. A friend of mine had her blood pressure suddenly spiked late in her pregnancy. Luckily, she was about due anyway, so it wasn't a problem to induce the pregancy and deliver the child. Suppose it happened at 6 months? Is it worth losing the child AND the mother? Isn't it logical to at least save the mother in hopes that she could someday deliver another child? Of course not, according to Dubya.

Again, according to the experts, partial-birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. Therefore, even if you don't think abortion is wrong, I don't see why banning that particular form would be a problem, especially since a clear majority of the country finds something very disturbing about it (with very good reason).

As I stated before, life of the mother situations are the most difficult in this arena. Obviously, if doctors think there is a strong or certain chance of dying from complications due to pregnancy, then the only person who really can choose the proper path at that point is the pregnant woman since the baby obviously can't. It's life or death and there's no one else to choose.

[dafoomie]

How about you provide a link that isn't from a Republican Congressman? Not exactly an unbiased medical opinion there.

I still find your reasoning to be rediculous. An embryo in the womb and an embryo in the test tube, at the same point in time in the pregnancy, are the same. Why is one murder and one not? Because it "will be human if left alone?"

I've stated my opinion on where I believe a fetus becomes a human based on scientific facts, and I don't find to be arbitrary or rediculous. The key for me is conciousness and thought.

[E-Z-B]

Again, according to the experts, partial-birth abortion is NEVER medically necessary. Therefore, even if you don't think abortion is wrong, I don't see why banning that particular form would be a problem, especially since a clear majority of the country finds something very disturbing about it (with very good reason).

As I stated before, life of the mother situations are the most difficult in this arena. Obviously, if doctors think there is a strong or certain chance of dying from complications due to pregnancy, then the only person who really can choose the proper path at that point is the pregnant woman since the baby obviously can't. It's life or death and there's no one else to choose.

Your link simply says "hundreds of" doctors without providing supporting evidence. Who's to say this questionable website just didn't spin the facts? And what do the other tens of thousands of doctors say? The opposite? Your link does little to validate your claim.

And I don't get where you're going with your second paragraph - it sounds like you do support a right to choose, which sounds contrary to the rest of your arguments.

[elprincipe]

How about you provide a link that isn't from a Republican Congressman? Not exactly an unbiased medical opinion there.

Well, that was a bill and was quoting the AMA, but here's a direct link:

http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=browse&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-5.982.HTM

2) According to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D&X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion

I still find your reasoning to be rediculous. An embryo in the womb and an embryo in the test tube, at the same point in time in the pregnancy, are the same. Why is one murder and one not? Because it "will be human if left alone?"

I've stated my opinion on where I believe a fetus becomes a human based on scientific facts, and I don't find to be arbitrary or rediculous. The key for me is conciousness and thought.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, since I find your reasoning to be ridiculous too (not rediculous though). I feel my reasoning can stand for itself. I don't expect to change people's opinions, but perhaps help people to understand a point of view somewhat removed from the usual rhetoric forthcoming on this issue.

[E-Z-B]

Never mind, I interpreted this wrong.

[dafoomie]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/08/nebraska.abortion.ap/

"According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point," Kopf wrote. "No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion.".

[elprincipe]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/08/nebraska.abortion.ap/

"According to responsible medical opinion, there are times when the banned procedure is medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman and a respectful reading of the congressional record proves that point," Kopf wrote. "No reasonable and unbiased person could come to a different conclusion.".

It's interesting to read that, since it most certainly is at odds with what the AMA says. Evidently this judge doesn't consider the AMA to to have a "responsible" opinion. :roll: