Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Look, I had a stomach ulser, I couldn't afford a doctor at the time so I had to self remove it.What was I supposed to do?
Oh....oh wait....hahahahaha! I get the joke now! You're implying that I...hahahaha.
Definately a funny girl, definately.
I'm right though, lets not overlook that fact.
-AC
HA hahahahaha....glad you can take a joke.....it was in that dawn of the dead movie I saw you in last night....glad you....had the teeth for it.
Originally posted by Clovie
so you're implying that it is becoming human after 9 months of pregnancy?
I'm implying that it becomes an actual newborn BABY when it leaves the womb.
Either way, it's not a human or baby, at the times YOU claim it is.
That is an actual fact. There is no debating it, whether you believe otherwise or not. You're wrong.
-AC
Originally posted by Bardock42
You with me or against me? 😛
having been on the welfare at times in my life i agree it shouldnt be exploited...
i agree... enough to get by is what anybody should be getting, not plasma tv's as you put it...
Originally posted by Clovie
so you're implying that it is becoming human after 9 months of pregnancy?
i think thats what he meant yeah...
edit: sorry alpha, didnt see you there...
Originally posted by Alpha Centauribut i'm asking about exact time.
I'm implying that it becomes an actual newborn BABY when it leaves the womb.Either way, it's not a human or baby, at the times YOU claim it is.
That is an actual fact. There is no debating it, whether you believe otherwise or not. You're wrong.
-AC
and why are you always assuming that you're the right one?
Originally posted by Clovie
don't you think it depends on what you believe?
some may say that it is not a human till for example 6th month when the child is able to sit
or to first year when it can walk..
or 15th year so it can theoretically survive on their own.i hope you see my point 😕
What does belief have to do with this? It has been scientifically proven, a number of times, that a fetus inside the womb of a female, is not a human being. Belief, religious or othwerwise, cannot dispute proven fact.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to youówe would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And to think, you called me stupid for thinking otherwise when you were just uneducated.Funny what a little schooling will do.
-AC
alright, i agree you were right but it still doesn't change my opinion wheather or not abortion should be allowed...i still don't believe in it and by all means shouldn't be allowed....a group of cells will be come a human being once it exits....the KEY word is............WILL............so i'm pro-life all the way...
Originally posted by alcoholicpoetfor me it is in the matter of beliefs now.
What does belief have to do with this? It has been scientifically proven, a number of times, that a fetus inside the womb of a female, is not a human being. Belief, religious or othwerwise, cannot dispute proven fact.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEnice theory.
I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to youówe would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.
Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.
summing up:
it is logicaly correct. but proves nothing
Yeah, the violin thing was a bit out there.
Look.
Bottom line is, if you’re not mature enough to handle any possible consequences such as STD’s and pregnancy, then do yourself a favor and don’t have sex in the first place. Reasoning such as, “I should be able to have sex ‘cuz I wanna!” is ridiculous.
Rape is 100% different and I believe abortion is absolutely justified in that case.