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

[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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."[/quote]

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.
 
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).
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']

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."[/quote]

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

In that situation, John Ashcroft, the attourny general, believes that the girl should die.
 
I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

[quote name='evilmax17']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Yes, John Ashcroft is the devil incarnate and wants young girls to die. :roll:
 
[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='Quackzilla']

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

[quote name='evilmax17']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Suppose you're building a house. You dig out a hole, poor the foundation, and suddenly stop. Is it a house now?
 
[quote name='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.
Click to expand...
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.[/quote]

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

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.
Click to expand...
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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...
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?[/quote]

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

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='eldad9']So a single cell would qualify as "someone"?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='Quackzilla']

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe']I've got hopefully a little time, so I'm going to make some effort to respond to the new posts in here.

[quote name='evilmax17']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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Analogies are a poor way of trying to prove something. Try facts.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Abortion is killing a little person. [/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='Quackzilla']

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='elprincipe']Abortion is killing a little person. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

Nope, definitely not a vegetarian. Non-human animals have no more rights than plants. It's a human-eat-animal world out there.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='Quackzilla']

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."[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

I'll do a search when I get the chance. The AMA has said this, I know it. I'll get back to you.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.[/quote]

Then what is your point?
 
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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.[/quote]

Then what is your point?[/quote]

I should have said question. Just read the question I wrote above, try to answer, and try to make sense with your answer.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='Backlash']No, he already said if it's not inside a woman it doesn't count. Plus you're being a little ridiculous.[/quote]

Come on, just a little? :wink:
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.[/quote]

Then what is your point?[/quote]

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

I'll make sense with my answer once you make sense with your question.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

That's nice. I guess you can't respond to my point.[/quote]

Then what is your point?[/quote]

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

I'll make sense with my answer once you make sense with your question.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...n"+abortion+"never+medically+necessary"&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.
 
[quote name='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.
[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Where would you draw the line?
 
[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Where would you draw the line?[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.
Click to expand...

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...n"+abortion+"never+medically+necessary"&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Where would you draw the line?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Of course and fair enough. I thought you were saying that kids would be forced into these classes without their parents' permission.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='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.
Click to expand...

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cach...n"+abortion+"never+medically+necessary"&hl=en

Scroll down a bit to the "medical necessity" part.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']How about you provide a link that isn't from a Republican Congressman? Not exactly an unbiased medical opinion there.[/quote]

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
Click to expand...

[quote name='dafoomie']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.[/quote]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top