Capital Punishment

[quote name='Cerebral_One']What's wrong with allowing women who are raped to be able to abort their child, if it has been legally proven? What is your answer to that predicament for such women?[/QUOTE]

I'm pro-choice. Making a woman goto a court to prove that she was a victim is pretty ridiculous, plus you open the door to activist judges who can choose to strike down the requests on principle. In other words, terrible idea.

[quote name='Cerebral_One']Regardless of the abortion issue, the adoption process should be fixed in this country. We shouldn't have families going overseas to adopt instead of getting a child right here in the US.

I think you're overestimating the amount of children, that could go up for adoption instead of abortion, that are special needs. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken you cannot determine if the kid will be special needs while still in the womb. So we're going to allow abortions simply because there's a chance the kid might end up being a special needs child? That's a great policy.

Well the couple who were murdered did it out of love... Not saying you're wrong but there may be just as many/more doing it for the right reasons as those that are not. This certainly would not be the only type of issue with a negative side to it. You should ask the children would they have preferred to been killed. If our government operated correctly, they would monitor the children while in a family's custody to see that the arrangement was fit.[/QUOTE]

You can test for some special needs while in the womb. There are many special needs kids still waiting for homes - it is a real and present problem in the US.

And dude - you really need to go get informed and then actually think before you post. I expected more out of a guy who calls himself the cerebral one.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm pro-choice. Making a woman goto a court to prove that she was a victim is pretty ridiculous, plus you open the door to activist judges who can choose to strike down the requests on principle. In other words, terrible idea.



You can test for some special needs while in the womb. There are many special needs kids still waiting for homes - it is a real and present problem in the US.

And dude - you really need to go get informed and then actually think before you post. I expected more out of a guy who calls himself the cerebral one.[/QUOTE]

Why is it ok to abort special needs kids because they have special needs again?
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm pro-choice. Making a woman goto a court to prove that she was a victim is pretty ridiculous, plus you open the door to activist judges who can choose to strike down the requests on principle. In other words, terrible idea.



You can test for some special needs while in the womb. There are many special needs kids still waiting for homes - it is a real and present problem in the US.

And dude - you really need to go get informed and then actually think before you post. I expected more out of a guy who calls himself the cerebral one.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure women would rather go to court to be able to abort an unwanted rape-child than carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. Although I would think that some of the women who were raped would have done that anyways to convict the rapist. Now you're saying that there's going to be all these activist judges who go against our laws to strike down requests based on their own overriding views that supersede law?

You would have to figure out if special needs kids would rather be dead than be alive, that's what it boils down to. I don't know why you're trying to insult me, I don't see how it proves you are more right than I am, especially when any argument you have made I have been able to counter.

[quote name='camoor']You can't abort a kid.[/QUOTE]

You know what he meant.
 
[quote name='camoor']You can't abort a kid.[/QUOTE]

I see we are back to pretending they aren't kids again. Beachballs.
 
[quote name='Knoell']I see we are back to pretending they aren't kids again. Beachballs.[/QUOTE]

Hundreths of millimeters. Jesus fucking H Christ learn some goddamn biology.

And I'm about to blow your mind - the earth isn't the center of the universe, evolution is happening, and global warming is real. Welcome to 2011.
 
[quote name='Cerebral_One']I'm sure women would rather go to court to be able to abort an unwanted rape-child than carry it for 9 months and give birth to it. Although I would think that some of the women who were raped would have done that anyways to convict the rapist. Now you're saying that there's going to be all these activist judges who go against our laws to strike down requests based on their own overriding views that supersede law?

You would have to figure out if special needs kids would rather be dead than be alive, that's what it boils down to. I don't know why you're trying to insult me, I don't see how it proves you are more right than I am, especially when any argument you have made I have been able to counter.[/QUOTE]

Your language is disgusting and seethes with misogyny. You also have a simplistic blame-the-victim mentality that I find reprehensible. You and Knoell are doing whatever possible to steer away from the real debate - IE should a zygote be considered a living human being. I don't know what magic you guys think happens the moment a sperm touches an egg, but the immediate result is hardly what I'd call a sentient human being. It's like putting unmixed flour, eggs, butter, and water in a bowl, sprinkling some yeast on top, and calling the stuff in the bowl "bread"

[quote name='Cerebral_One']You know what he meant.[/QUOTE]

Words have meanings.
 
[quote name='camoor']Hundreths of millimeters. Jesus fucking H Christ learn some goddamn biology.

And I'm about to blow your mind - the earth isn't the center of the universe, evolution is happening, and global warming is real. Welcome to 2011.[/QUOTE]

Heres something that will blow your mind, that thing growing inside mommy is going to be a child. I know all your biology and science tells you otherwise :roll: but it is true!
 
[quote name='Knoell']Heres something that will blow your mind, that thing growing inside mommy is going to be a child. I know all your biology and science tells you otherwise :roll: but it is true![/QUOTE]

Not if she (legally) decides to get that thing aborted.

Glad we're back to using real words again. Now keep using your big-boy voice and you might be invited back into the debate.
 
[quote name='Cerebral_One']What's wrong with allowing women who are raped to be able to abort their child, if it has been legally proven? What is your answer to that predicament for such women?

Regardless of the abortion issue, the adoption process should be fixed in this country. We shouldn't have families going overseas to adopt instead of getting a child right here in the US.

I think you're overestimating the amount of children, that could go up for adoption instead of abortion, that are special needs. Furthermore, unless I'm mistaken you cannot determine if the kid will be special needs while still in the womb. So we're going to allow abortions simply because there's a chance the kid might end up being a special needs child? That's a great policy.



Well the couple who were murdered did it out of love... Not saying you're wrong but there may be just as many/more doing it for the right reasons as those that are not. This certainly would not be the only type of issue with a negative side to it. You should ask the children would they have preferred to been killed. If our government operated correctly, they would monitor the children while in a family's custody to see that the arrangement was fit.[/QUOTE]

I agree, if they operated right the kids would be checked in on, and you are probably right that for as many bad parents there are there are just as many that do it for right reasons. Just more concerning when people use special needs children to live their live's using their money.
 
[quote name='camoor']Your language is disgusting and seethes with misogyny. You also have a simplistic blame-the-victim mentality that I find reprehensible. You and Knoell are doing whatever possible to steer away from the real debate - IE should a zygote be considered a living human being. I don't know what magic you guys think happens the moment a sperm touches an egg, but the immediate result is hardly what I'd call a sentient human being. It's like putting unmixed flour, eggs, butter, and water in a bowl, sprinkling some yeast on top, and calling the stuff in the bowl "bread"



Words have meanings.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Okay, I see there's no point in conversing with you.
 
So it that how everyone feels, the minute a sperm hits the egg they are calling it a "baby"? Not trying to sound like a wiseass, I am just curious on everyone's opinion.
 
[quote name='Jabrim']So it that how everyone feels, the minute a sperm hits the egg they are calling it a "baby"? Not trying to sound like a wiseass, I am just curious on everyone's opinion.[/QUOTE]

I honestly don't think anyone (other then cerebralone, don't get me started again) thinks that a zygote is a baby. Even Knoell backed down on that one.

It's a cheap word trick that the religious right tries to use to bolster their point. Fact is almost everyone is against late third trimester abortions except in the most extreme of cases. The question is whether society should legalize aborting a fetus earlier in the gestation process.
 
How can you force a woman to have a baby even in the third trimester or even the second trimester? You are forcing her to such slavery, there are a multitude of valid reasons she might not want it.

Why is it that the longer the thing develops inside her the less tolerant you are of aborting it? Little camoor is the same person in the first trimester as the second or third. The lack of a face to make you sad when you kill it is the only difference. It still results in a person, and to you guys that person has no rights until it has a face I guess.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How can you force a woman to have a baby even in the third trimester or even the second trimester? You are forcing her to such slavery, there are a multitude of valid reasons she might not want it.

Why is it that the longer the thing develops inside her the less tolerant you are of aborting it? Little camoor is the same person in the first trimester as the second or third. The lack of a face to make you sad when you kill it is the only difference. It still results in a person, and to you guys that person has no rights until it has a face I guess.[/QUOTE]

Nope.

I don't think any magic happens the instant a sperm hits an egg. I also don't think any magic happens the moment a baby comes out of a pregnant woman's vagina. I believe that the fetus becomes a baby late in the pregnancy. I base this on a philisophical analysis of pregnancy's biological process.
 
A zygote is the cell that ultimately develops into more cells, i.e. a human being. How is a single cell different from multiple cells when it makes up the same exact thing. The process has already begun and there's no turning back. All the DNA is there contained within the zygote.
 
[quote name='camoor']Nope.

I don't think any magic happens the instant a sperm hits an egg. I also don't think any magic happens the moment a baby comes out of a pregnant woman's vagina. I believe that the fetus becomes a baby late in the pregnancy. I base this on a philisophical analysis of pregnancy's biological process.[/QUOTE]

Ok then what particular attribute do you consider the "turning point"?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok then what particular attribute do you consider the "turning point"?[/QUOTE]

Not being a zygote for one.

I typically think that absent of health concerns about 3-4 months sounds right. I'm not completely set on that and could be swayed either way with a convincing logical arguement.
 
A human zygote is a human zygote. It will be a fully formed human being one day if carried to term, but as it is, it isn't. That's just fact, there's no way to logically argue against it.

I can't believe there is even argument about this.
 
[quote name='camoor']Not being a zygote for one.

I typically think that absent of health concerns about 3-4 months sounds right. I'm not completely set on that and could be swayed either way with a convincing logical arguement.[/QUOTE]

Great "philosophical analysis of pregnancys biological process"

So now one of you is throwing a random estimate of time out there after I ask what attribute makes 3-4 months unacceptable. Anyway how can you create a law to force a woman to carry that thing inside her for 5 additional months if she doesn't want to? What will you do if she has an "accident" then? You sexist monster!

Then the other one of you seems to believe it is a zygote until it is carried to term.

Wow. The zygote typically lasts about 5-6 days so what about the other 8 months and 24 days? Is it a human yet? In the 5th week or 3rd after fertilization the heart, brain, and spinal cord start to develop, is it worthy of protecting yet? Or are we still pretending that it isn't a human being until it first - what? Thinks? Sees? Feels pain?

Currently under your guys definition of what is human, you should be able to abort until the day you bring the baby to term. Edit: Well under Claks you shouldn't be allowed to abort after the 6th day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']A human zygote is a human zygote. It will be a fully formed human being one day if carried to term, but as it is, it isn't. That's just fact, there's no way to logically argue against it.

I can't believe there is even argument about this.[/QUOTE]

Humans are made up of cells. A zygote is a cell.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Great "philosophical analysis of pregnancys biological process"

So now one of you is throwing a random estimate of time out there after I ask what attribute makes 3-4 months unacceptable.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't be bothered to look up my college paper on it. Besides, my side won a long time ago.

[quote name='Knoell']Anyway how can you create a law to force a woman to carry that thing inside her for 5 additional months if she doesn't want to? What will you do if she has an "accident" then? You sexist monster!

Then the other one of you seems to believe it is a zygote until it is carried to term.

Wow. The zygote typically lasts about 5-6 days so what about the other 8 months and 24 days? Is it a human yet? In the 5th week or 3rd after fertilization the heart, brain, and spinal cord start to develop, is it worthy of protecting yet? Or are we still pretending that it isn't a human being until it first - what? Thinks? Sees? Feels pain?

Currently under your guys definition of what is human, you should be able to abort until the day you bring the baby to term.[/QUOTE]

Very good and on-topic questions right up until the last sentence - and I clearly stated that I do not believe that any magic happens when the baby comes out of the mother.

What does make a human? Can I assume that you believe a soul is involved? Personally I think that once the fetus starts to be scientifically distinguishable from any other mammal (without delving into the DNA, of course) then you're approaching the pivot point upon which the question of humanity sits.
 
So in other words you don't know. "As long as it doesn't look human my conscience is clear! Ignorance is my friend!" You are truely scientific.

Besides that, you want to force women to have a baby after 3-4 months. How you can make this rule without some distinguishable event occurring to make it unacceptable to abort, I dont know. Facial expressions occur at that point? Is that what determines it for you? Movement began long ago in month 1.5.

This shouldn't be hard to remember from your paper. It would seem to be the most memorable part. Even then you can google it. The problem is that you seem to think pro life people are so ridiculous in their beliefs but you believe the same god damn thing. Just a few months later.

Oh and I love your smart ass banana comment. Are we going to start pretending we aren't sure its a human growing in there again?

Would you at least agree the law needs to be changed to prevent abortions in the 2nd trimester?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']Bananas are made up of cells.[/QUOTE]

You're so full of shit it's ridiculous. I bet you think a banana is not a banana until it turns yellow. You're going on my ignore list.

[quote name='Knoell']So in other words you don't know. "As long as it doesn't look human my conscience is clear! Ignorance is my friend!" You are truely scientific.[/QUOTE]
:lol::applause:
 
Only thing I will say in this thread:

You can freeze a fertilized egg and ship it via Fedex.

Try that with a baby and get back to me.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So in other words you don't know. "As long as it doesn't look human my conscience is clear! Ignorance is my friend!" You are truely scientific.[/QUOTE]

Not look - I mean across a variety of factors. Most mammals are vertibrates with organs like heart, lung, kidneys etc. Up unto a certain point, I believe any fetus does not count as a sentient human being in the eyes of the law.

[quote name='Knoell']This shouldn't be hard to remember from your paper. It would seem to be the most memorable part. Even then you can google it. The problem is that you seem to think pro life people are so ridiculous in their beliefs but you believe the same god damn thing. Just a few months later.[/QUOTE]

If it makes you feel any better I think you're less ridiculous then CerebralOne.

[quote name='Knoell']Oh and I love your smart ass banana comment. Are we going to start pretending we aren't sure its a human growing in there again?[/QUOTE]

Lighten up, you're going to give yourself an ananeurysm.

[quote name='Knoell']Would you at least agree the law needs to be changed to prevent abortions in the 2nd trimester?[/QUOTE]

No because of special considerations such as health complications.
 
[quote name='camoor'].



No because of special considerations such as health complications.[/QUOTE]

What if that was an exception? The current law states a woman can have one with health risk in the third trimester so it wouldn't be much different.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Only thing I will say in this thread:

You can freeze a fertilized egg and ship it via Fedex.

Try that with a baby and get back to me.[/QUOTE]

This is your definition for life? An embryo may be able to be frozen, but it becomes a fetus after 2 months which cannot be frozen. I am not sure that you can even freeze an embryo (and it still be alive) in the later parts of the two months. So does that count for anything? Going to ban abortions after two months? Nope, that's when you move the goal post for life.
 
[quote name='Knoell']So in other words you don't know. "As long as it doesn't look human my conscience is clear! Ignorance is my friend!" You are truely scientific.

Besides that, you want to force women to have a baby after 3-4 months. How you can make this rule without some distinguishable event occurring to make it unacceptable to abort, I dont know. Facial expressions occur at that point? Is that what determines it for you? Movement began long ago in month 1.5.

This shouldn't be hard to remember from your paper. It would seem to be the most memorable part. Even then you can google it. The problem is that you seem to think pro life people are so ridiculous in their beliefs but you believe the same god damn thing. Just a few months later.

Oh and I love your smart ass banana comment. Are we going to start pretending we aren't sure its a human growing in there again?

Would you at least agree the law needs to be changed to prevent abortions in the 2nd trimester?[/QUOTE]
The event that we make it illegal at is when the fetus develops a gender, usually around the 20th week. Or at least that is what I always though was the agreed upon magic moment.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']The event that we make it illegal at is when the fetus develops a gender, usually around the 20th week. Or at least that is what I always though was the agreed upon magic moment.[/QUOTE]

Week 13 is usually about when gender becomes apparant.

The illegality of abortions is separated into trimesters.

The first trimester the government cannot restrict abortions.
The second trimester, you must have an abortion by a licensed official and the woman must not be overburdened with requirements.
The third trimester, is only acceptable when the mother is having medical complications.

Your magic moment (Week 20) would land smack dab in the middle of the second trimester, so would that persaude you to ban second trimester abortions?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Week 13 is usually about when gender becomes apparant.

The illegality of abortions is separated into trimesters.

The first trimester the government cannot restrict abortions.
The second trimester, you must have an abortion by a licensed official and the woman must not be overburdened with requirements.
The third trimester, is only acceptable when the mother is having medical complications.

Your magic moment (Week 20) would land smack dab in the middle of the second trimester, so would that persaude you to ban second trimester abortions?[/QUOTE]

This is all very interesting but why do I get the feeling you're still clinging to the belief that a zygote = human being.
 
Why not just leave it up to the woman having the baby whether she wants to have an abortion and when she wants to be up to her? Why does it need to be someone else's choice when she can have an abortion because John Doe or Jane Doe doesn't agree with it?
 
[quote name='Cerebral_One']Humans are made up of cells. A zygote is a cell.[/QUOTE]
To the ignore list with ye.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Week 13 is usually about when gender becomes apparant.

The illegality of abortions is separated into trimesters.

The first trimester the government cannot restrict abortions.
The second trimester, you must have an abortion by a licensed official and the woman must not be overburdened with requirements.
The third trimester, is only acceptable when the mother is having medical complications.

Your magic moment (Week 20) would land smack dab in the middle of the second trimester, so would that persaude you to ban second trimester abortions?[/QUOTE]

Honestly, only if our foster system and orphanage system were better funded and not on the next chopping block when bad times hit. Also to allow everyone, no matter age, access to bc (pills, day after pill, condoms, and education), and our country had a better track record with adoption rates (last time I about half will age out of the system). I guess I put more emphasis on what we can do to help those that are here, than those that could be here.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Honestly, only if our foster system and orphanage system were better funded and not on the next chopping block when bad times hit. Also to allow everyone, no matter age, access to bc (pills, day after pill, condoms, and education), and our country had a better track record with adoption rates (last time I about half will age out of the system). I guess I put more emphasis on what we can do to help those that are here, than those that could be here.[/QUOTE]

I agree these issues need to be better handled. However I still think that doesn't excuse abortions if you believe they are human beings. Birth control is pretty accessible to everyone nowadays in one form or another, but I noticed you stuck "no matter the age" in there, and I think that is a big issue.

Besides education, how would you deal with birth control in high schools?
 
[quote name='camoor']This is all very interesting but why do I get the feeling you're still clinging to the belief that a zygote = human being.[/QUOTE]

We aren't talking about what I believe, we are talking about what you believe.

You have talked quite a lot of trash about pro lifers and their belief that abortions should be illegal because they are human lives.
You neither believe life starts at the conception or birth. You make fun of the belief that the life begins at conception yet you believe somewhere in the middle of the process, life suddenly starts. Yet you cannot determine what happens, when it happens, or where it happens.

You bash pro lifers for wanting to force woman to be pregnant, yet you seemingly support the same thing for more than half (or at least the later third) of the pregnancy. But then again you don't support yourself because you give a time period in which you say you believe life begins, but then you won't protect that life.

I am honestly just trying to pin down your beliefs on this subject. I think a lot of people are as up in the air about it as you. Maybe I just want to know why you support the ban on abortions in the third trimester? (Assuming you do of course)
 
[quote name='Jabrim']Why not just leave it up to the woman having the baby whether she wants to have an abortion and when she wants to be up to her? Why does it need to be someone else's choice when she can have an abortion because John Doe or Jane Doe doesn't agree with it?[/QUOTE]

Because politics is the business of being in other people's business while claiming that you don't want to be in other people's business at all.
 
[quote name='Knoell']We aren't talking about what I believe, we are talking about what you believe.

You have talked quite a lot of trash about pro lifers and their belief that abortions should be illegal because they are human lives.
You neither believe life starts at the conception or birth. You make fun of the belief that the life begins at conception yet you believe somewhere in the middle of the process, life suddenly starts. Yet you cannot determine what happens, when it happens, or where it happens.

You bash pro lifers for wanting to force woman to be pregnant, yet you seemingly support the same thing for more than half (or at least the later third) of the pregnancy. But then again you don't support yourself because you give a time period in which you say you believe life begins, but then you won't protect that life.

I am honestly just trying to pin down your beliefs on this subject. I think a lot of people are as up in the air about it as you. Maybe I just want to know why you support the ban on abortions in the third trimester? (Assuming you do of course)[/QUOTE]

Yeah god forbid I see the world in shades of grey. God forbid I leave my viewpoint open to convincing arguements from the world's foremost biologists and moral philosophers.

By way of analogy I don't know the exact speed that causes a particular road to be unsafe, but I do know that I would trust a traffic safety research analyst for the answer over a priest, lawyer, or politician. As a layman I can make an educated guess - I know that 100mph is probably unsafe on a winding road, and 10mph on a four-lane highway is probably ridicuously low.

Likewise I don't the absolute answer concerning abortion, but I do know stupidity when I see it. Treating a handful of cells like a human being doesn't make sense. Neither does killing the fetus/baby immediately before it passes out of the womb (barring extreme health considerations, of course).
 
[quote name='Knoell']I agree these issues need to be better handled. However I still think that doesn't excuse abortions if you believe they are human beings. Birth control is pretty accessible to everyone nowadays in one form or another, but I noticed you stuck "no matter the age" in there, and I think that is a big issue.

Besides education, how would you deal with birth control in high schools?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe the fetus is a child. As simply put as possible I believe that a person is one who has, for lack of a better term, humany qualities, which to put a better border on would be self perception, awareness of self in relation to world, and ability to form memories that result in learned behavior. I believe unborn children lack these faculties and as such are not human to me. The best way to understand this is that a zombie might be structurally human but is not human at all.

What do you mean by besides education? What problems are you perceiving about BC in high school? Need more information, I am not a mind reader and honestly do not know what I should be responding to here.
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah god forbid I see the world in shades of grey. God forbid I leave my viewpoint open to convincing arguements from the world's foremost biologists and moral philosophers.

By way of analogy I don't know the exact speed that causes a particular road to be unsafe, but I do know that I would trust a traffic safety research analyst for the answer over a priest, lawyer, or politician. As a layman I can make an educated guess - I know that 100mph is probably unsafe on a winding road, and 10mph on a four-lane highway is probably ridicuously low.

Likewise I don't the absolute answer concerning abortion, but I do know stupidity when I see it. Treating a handful of cells like a human being doesn't make sense. Neither does killing the fetus/baby immediately before it passes out of the womb (barring extreme health considerations, of course).[/QUOTE]

Ok I will ask again then. What do these scientists and moral philosphers say?

It isn't shades of gray you are dealing in. You say abortion is not ok at this point because it is a human then. Then you define when it becomes human, but fail to follow through with protecting it after that point.

Why do you need a shade of gray there? Unless you are willing to admit that you believe a womans choice (no matter the reason) supercedes that human life.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't believe the fetus is a child. As simply put as possible I believe that a person is one who has, for lack of a better term, humany qualities, which to put a better border on would be self perception, awareness of self in relation to world, and ability to form memories that result in learned behavior. I believe unborn children lack these faculties and as such are not human to me. The best way to understand this is that a zombie might be structurally human but is not human at all.

What do you mean by besides education? What problems are you perceiving about BC in high school? Need more information, I am not a mind reader and honestly do not know what I should be responding to here.[/QUOTE]

The earliest premature baby was born between 5-6 months. I think most people would call it far from a zombie. I think they would call it a baby.

You said birth control available to everyone no matter the age. How would you approach handing out birth control to high school students?
 
The womans choice (no matter the reason) supercedes that human life.

Like I said before - Whether or not its a human life is 100% irrelevant. Call it human life at the point of conception. Call it human life at 4 or 6 or however many months you want. Doesnt matter to me. The only thing that matters is suffering inflicted upon sentient beings. Yes, there are shades of gray here, because the world is full of nuance. But where you gain a sense of self, the ability to suffer, and the ability to remember it, is in the neighborhood of 2+ years.

I'd be up for the mother terminating a live baby at 1 year, for no reason. No reason at all.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok I will ask again then. What do these scientists and moral philosphers say?[/QUOTE]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=abortion+and+moral+philosophy

[quote name='Knoell']It isn't shades of gray you are dealing in. You say abortion is not ok at this point because it is a human then. Then you define when it becomes human, but fail to follow through with protecting it after that point. [/QUOTE]

How am I not advocating protecting it after it becomes a human life?

[quote name='Knoell']Why do you need a shade of gray there? Unless you are willing to admit that you believe a womans choice (no matter the reason) supercedes that human life.[/QUOTE]

Woman's choice supercedes the organism that is alive up unto the point that it becomes human. As mentioned before, I don't believe that the organism in the early stages of pregnancy is a human life.
 
[quote name='nasum']Because politics is the business of being in other people's business while claiming that you don't want to be in other people's business at all.[/QUOTE]

Finally someone has an honest answer.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The earliest premature baby was born between 5-6 months. I think most people would call it far from a zombie. I think they would call it a baby.

You said birth control available to everyone no matter the age. How would you approach handing out birth control to high school students?[/QUOTE]

I think most people would call a conglomeration of cells a baby, and like your point to my argument, does not make it right. I have stated where my thoughts on this come from and to push it farther than this I will add that A- until it is born and develops memory/humany qualitites it is not a person, 5-6 month delivered baby is barely a human (interesting note on babies born from intensive care, they actually experience pain differently than most people and in some cases have overactive receptors which can lead to predispositions to phantom pains and non ending pain. Interesting research in this area.) B- if there is no chance for development of meaningful life parents should have the right to terminate infants, nothing minor but for genetic diseases that can not be treated and have almost a 100% death rate, tay-sachs for example. C- this extends to adults as well, namely those with no brain function or chance at recovery. My question to you is what are your responses to the realities of "saving" these lives.

Obviously just looking at the saving of a life is not a full plan/end. Since, as a member of a society, you believe and have so far succeeded partially (outlawing certain abortion practices and limiting them to certain people) what are you strategies to "pay" for these births. I mean to just name a few, non aborted unwanted babies have a higher rate of becoming criminals, many people who need abortions are usually people who come from sub par living conditions which has been shown to limit the ability of the child to succeed in life (employment, enjoyment, education et al), as well as the increased strain on resources (government funding of young-uns especially during a time of economic struggle, something you have been drumming the beat on for a while now), and reduced prospects for said parents (who lose the ability to compete for jobs and gain education opportunities, mainly because of poor daycare options is shitty communities). Yes I am blending both the abortion debate with the poor debate, but mostly it is the poor that benefit the most from this practice. What are your answers to these? If you want to encourage behavior that saves more "kids" how are you willing to achieve this? We have seen what the no to anything approach is, and there were statically more abandoned children and babies left to die pre-abortion era as well as more failed and harmful illegal abortions back then as well. What would be a reasonable way to combat this as well? So far, your argument has more or been the flimsy moral argument, lets move past that and look towards the effects of the policy. My position is that it cuts down on the preceding problems, what is your response to these problems and why they benefit society and the person better the the allowance abortions is.

As per the high school question- Ideally? Repeal of state laws forbidding the sale of them, and secondly make birth control free for underage and subsidized for those above age of consent. Also establish either roaming PP counselors/clinics or have a permanent one at HS and MS level's that have the ability to handle and dispense bc. Admittedly there will be a sense of parent's losing control over kids education, but tough luck. If as a society we are being forced to subsidize the education of people I fucking well want society to have a stake in sexual education and ability to act upon it. If parents want that power back there is unsubsidized private schools and home schools. But honestly if a parent accepts public education they, imo, made a contract with society to allow the education of the minor to be state controlled, they lost their right to refuse when they sent their kids to school.

This is rambly but it is also late and I am tired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top