Abortion

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes and all of those pro choice arguments can be summed up into one simple sentence. That sentence being...

[b]It's legal, so it's not a life.

Unfortunately science doesn't seem to agree with you. This has been pointed out multiple times.

Come on now Captain..it's time to drop the secularistic dogmatism and think outside of the religious box where your opinion seems to be confined.

Science tells us it's a life, and that upon "conception" the beginning stages of "human development" form..

Not so hard for one to believe bud, but I guess like most things in life, one "chooses" the things that they wish to believe in. 😉

Fin [/B]

👆 ✅

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Religion tends to cloud people's better judgement *cough*sithsaber408*cough*.

Or clarify it.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So what if its a cell.

Its a HUMAN cell.

Not an arachnoid cell, not a dog cell,..... a human cell.

It is alive (by your own admission), it is formed, and it is human.

Just because the human body hasn't formed yet means nothing.

All the necessary energy and matter are in place for a human being to develop.

Whob's point stands.

All the necessary energy and matter are in place for a human being to develop while you are having sex, but you have no problem preventing this development with the use of contraceptives.

Why is it okay to waste the potential for human life through some methods, i.e. masturbation, contraceptives, and sterilization, but not through others, i.e. abortion?

Why is it okay to prevent the development of human life during some moments, i.e. one second before fertilization, but not during others, i.e. one second after fertilization?

"Exactly.
Oh wait...you believe you have the right to interfere don't you? I remember now, that must be why I threw any shred of credibility you had, right out the window."

--...As you do to everything pro-life argues. And for that reason no one pays much attention to what YOU say.

"As long as that doesn't interfere with other people, there shouldn't be a problem."
---If nobody ever interfered with things that weren't thier problem, guess where we would be today? Germany would have won World War Two, China would probably rule half the world, and terrorists would run loose across America; all because someone didnt want to upset the other by "interfering". Its NO different here- even though abortions are a lot different than global politics. If people didnt interfere with the decisions of others we would have taken "one nation under god" out of the pledge just because a bunch of muslims hated it. (no offense to any muslims 🙂 )

"Why is it okay to prevent the development of human life during some moments, i.e. one second before fertilization, but not during others, i.e. one second after fertilization?"

If it is just at the point of fertilization, thats a little different than a developing child. And in none of those are you killing anything.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
Read between the lines. They WILL be someone- and then someone abortions them and they have no chance.

So a condom is not as bad as abortion. Go on....

Originally posted by whobdamandog
[b]It's legal, so it's not a life.[/B]

No, you idiot. The phrase should read: "It's not alive, so it should be legal.

Once again, you demonstrate a clear misunderstanding of your opposition.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Just because the human body hasn't formed yet means nothing.

What do you mean "So what"? It's not a human, that's what. If it's a cell, it can't also be a human.

It's factually not a human being. I'm not too sure what you keep trying this for. It was created by a human being, therefore it's an actual human? Stupidness.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
As you do to everything pro-life argues. And for that reason no one pays much attention to what YOU say.

People do pay attention, hence why my points are ignored by the pro-lifers. They're correct.

You have absolutely no right to interfere in other people's lives.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
If nobody ever interfered with things that weren't thier problem, guess where we would be today? Germany would have won World War Two, China would probably rule half the world, and terrorists would run loose across America; all because someone didnt want to upset the other by "interfering". Its NO different here- even though abortions are a lot different than global politics. If people didnt interfere with the decisions of others we would have taken "one nation under god" out of the pledge just because a bunch of muslims hated it.

It is different here, you fool. What the hell are you talking about?

"If we didn't go to war etc"

So? This is about females having abortions. They don't affect you and keeping away and out of their lives will not result in a war.

This is exactly why your participation in this thread is laughable.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
If it is just at the point of fertilization, thats a little different than a developing child. And in none of those are you killing anything.

It's not a developing child. It's a developing cell that, if left unchecked, will become a child in the future.

Don't put the cart before the horse, it'll get you nowhere.

-AC

I might add that quoting people who support the "pro-life" stance is not the same as speaking your own mind.

Support life all you want, but your reasoning should play a factor in the POV you support.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
No, you idiot. The phrase should read: "It's not alive, so it should be legal.

Completely retarded statement above, I truly hope you were being sarcastic, and not attempting to sound witty or intelligent. But based on our other conversations in multiple other threads, I'll assume that the latter of my assumptions is correct.

If something is "alive", than that something has a "life." Obviously a zygote, cell, amoeba, etc, etc...can each be clearly defined as "life." Albeit they are simple forms of "life", however they are still "lives" none the less.

Originally posted by Adam Poe
Why is it okay to waste the potential for human life through some methods, i.e. masturbation, contraceptives, and sterilization, but not through others, i.e. abortion?

Why is it okay to prevent the development of human life during some moments, i.e. one second before fertilization, but not during others, i.e. one second after fertilization?

Adam..your ignorance is only overshadowed by your stupidity. But I must admit, you do present your foolish drivel rather eloquently.

Preventing conception is obviously not the same as ending a life once it has been conceived. By your rationale, one could essentially equate a person who is abstinent as "wasting the potential for human life."

Anyway..why yourself and Captain Fantastic are so worried about a woman's "right" to "choose" is beyond me, particularly since both of you engage in sexual behaviors which would never allow for such scenarios to take place to begin with.

If anything it would seem more fitting for you both to be supporters of the "pro-life" position, seeing as how you are both under the assumption that human sexuality is "genetic." Your positions on human sexuality could inevitably support the abortion of fetus's that are determined to be genetically predisposed to certain sexual lifestyles, particularly those that are not widely accepted as being "natural" or "moral" by many in modern societies.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Completely retarded

Completely is subjective.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..why yourself and Captain Fantastic are so worried about a woman's "right" to "choose" is beyond me, particularly since both of you engage in sexual behaviors which would never allow for such scenarios to take place to begin with.

Anyway...why yourself and others are so worried about a "human's" "right" to "life" is beyond me. Particularly since all of you have nothing to do with any of those things, or the woman bearing them, to begin with.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Adam..your ignorance is only overshadowed by your stupidity. But I must admit, you do present your foolish drivel rather eloquently.

Preventing conception is obviously not the same as ending a life once it has been conceived. By your rationale, one could essentially equate a person who is abstinent as "wasting the potential for human life."

Anyway..why yourself and Captain Fantastic are so worried about a woman's "right" to "choose" is beyond me, particularly since both of you engage in sexual behaviors which would never allow for such scenarios to take place to begin with.

If anything it would seem more fitting for you both to be supporters of the "pro-life" position, seeing as how you are both under the assumption that human sexuality is "genetic." Your positions on human sexuality could inevitably support the abortion of fetus's that are determined to be genetically predisposed to certain sexual lifestyles, particularly those that are not widely accepted as being "natural" or "moral" by many in modern societies.

The only difference between a sperm and egg one second before fertilization and one second after fertilization is proximity.

If it is wrong to prevent the development of human life, then why is it acceptable to you and sithsaber408 to prevent the development of human life on the basis of proximity and timing?

If I were to travel backward through time and prevent you from being conceived, would you regard this as acceptable because it was accomplished one second before fertilization and not one second after?

Moreover, it could just as easily be asked of you why you concern yourself with the issue of abortion when you will never become pregnant. At least Capt_Fantastic and I are concerned with the rights of actual persons. However, I suppose it is fitting that you would support the rights of non-existent persons as an extention of a belief in a non-existent god.

Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
"Give it up for adoption" is a nice thought, but do you realize what it takes to adopt a child? Alot of money for one. There are a great many children who never even get adopted and stay in orphanages without ever having a parent.

Originally posted by XxILuvVegetaxX
I'm pro-choice, I don't feel as the gov should be allowed to have a final say on a woman's choice. At the same time, I don't like women who just don't take care of themselves and end up getting pregnant wanting an abortion. You ****ed up, so therefore take responsibility, if you can't take care of the child yourself, put it up for adoption. Same goes for young teenage girls, if you're to young to have a baby, then you were to young to be having sex. Nothing really to do w/ religious reasons why I thnk this (im atheist), but I just thnk you should take responsibility for your actions.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If it is wrong to prevent the development of human life, then why is it acceptable to you and sithsaber408 to prevent the development of human life on the basis of proximity and timing?

Repeat:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Preventing conception is obviously not the same as ending a life once it has been conceived.

Warning KMC people!!! Warning!! Another Adam Poe stupid analogy is about to take place. Tread with caution.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If I were to travel backward through time and prevent you from being conceived, would you regard this as acceptable because it was accomplished one second before fertilization and not one second after?

😆😆

Yes it would be more "acceptable" for you to go back in time and give my dad a rubber, than it would for you to go back in time and punch my mom in the stomach a couple of times 4-6 weeks after my father knocked her up.

It would also be more "acceptable" for you to go back in time and preach to a bunch of hippies who supported Roe vs Wade that abstinence is a better way to "prevent" unplanned pregnancy, as opposed to a women having an abortion. Come to think of it, travelling back in time and giving such a sermon would probably be quite beneficial to modern society. I mean..it would have helped "prevent" a bunch of "intelligent" dinks with stupid opinions like "homosexuality is genetic", and "a women has the right to choose" from being born.😉

None of this really matters anyway, seeing as how we both know that our little scenarios are a bit silly and illogical. I mean...everyone knows that the only way to travel back in time is if you have a Delorian, a flux capacitor, and assistance from Christopher Lloyd. Duhhh...(sic) 🙄

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Warning KMC people!!! Warning!! Another Adam Poe stupid analogy is about to take place. Tread with caution.
😆😆

hysterical

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Religiously- you attempt to define the beliefs of those who argue based on their god as something other than religious. This can not be done. As I pointed out to Sithsabre, seperation of church and state can not occure if the person arguing in favor of the state can not remove themselves from the church. Religion was a privately DECIDED course, last I heard. The world of science has been unable to define the moment that human life begins because of the objections of the HUMAN religious.

Hey, this part wasn't an argument for changing the law, just that abortion was, if not immoral, then at least amoral.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Legally- You are trying to remove the independance of the woman involved. Not only do you place the rights of those eleceted to govern above the rights of those they govern, but you disregard teh rights of those they govern to elect new officials. As has been done in this thread far too often, human life is assumed. If you disagree with the context of this thread, then dispute that fact, no other. "Most will agree with the taking of a human life", but ascribing "human" life to a mass of cells that has not delevoped sight, hearing, or self-awareness is premature....much like abortion itself in the mind of others. Only you imply the term "homicide" with your accusations. "Some homicides are legal"....so why support one homicide over another?..given your perspective? Both are an abomination to god's will as well as the will of the person who supports a right to life on all bases. The blastual: Were the "blastual" common to humans only, then your argument of human rights and superiority would be substantiated. However it is not, so it is rightfully dismissed. Assigning a term that decribes a common biologcal occurance to a single species is not valid. Certainly it would be made of human cells...otherwise it's parents would be comprised of human and "animal" cells. "Outside of the mother"? Outside of the mother, no life would exist!

No, I'm not trying to remove anyones independence. I was merely using already established laws to support the feasibility of a law against abortion. Does the law requiring me to Buckle up or only go 65 mph restrict my "freedom". I don't know, but it's there; so it seems that restricting abortion would indeed fall in a similar place. We live in a republic, not an anarchy and there are restrictions on what we can and cannot do.

As far as the homicide argument - Don't be silly. You know very well why some homicides are allowed: Self Defense, etc. It's called justifiable homicide. The question is always "is it justified"

Maybe I should have been specific that I was talking about the human blastula. I thought that was self evident. Unless we grant animals similar rights to people I don't have anything to say on what we do with the fetal cells of other species.

PS I wasn't talking about God or Religion in this part of the argument

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Rational- "A person should be responsible for their actions" So too should their descisions based on those actions be as equally regarded. "Theft or murder" is not impregnation. In a secualar world, there is an alternative to the sole consequinces of those actions. Were "theft and murder" as subjective, then there would be a basis for your argument. If matters of their subjective abitlities be based on morality, then one must allow for the fact that morals are subjective...often based on religion. Religion being a doctrine based on what they have been told v. what they have experienced or learned for themselves. As it is, few of the people taking part in this thread are basing their opinions on their PERSONAL experiences.

I don't know why you think any of those things is subjective. The all happen, theft, murder, impregnation, and abortion. very objective happenings. If someone kills it meanst that someone is dead. No you can go free after something like that (possibly OJ Simpson did), but should you? Likewise you can avoid some consequences of unprotected sex through abortion, but should it be allowed? If we base our laws on morality (and you can't deny that at least some are - anti-obscenity laws for instance), Then there is no reason not to give anti-abortion laws a fair hearing or even a vote.

By the way, your assumption that morality is subjective and based on personal feelings is only valid if no god exists. If there is a God, then Morality could be defined by him. This, of course, has no relation to the rational argument, but could be attached to the religious one.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Stem cell research is an arbitrary notion, based on choosing those aspects of yor religion.....again, hypocritical.

I admit that my stance on abortion is influenced by my religion, but my stance on stem cells has nothing to do with it. I don't see it as being hypocritical at all. I think that life is valuable. Therefore, any meanst of preserving life are also valuable. And while I would prefer that no abortions take place, I don't think that is feasible. Even I would allow abortion in cases like rape or life of the mother. So if there is going to be fetal material aborted, why not use it to save lives? The alternative is to just throw it away. I support fetal stem cell research for the same reason I support organ donation.

This is pathetic. There is no point to this thread because some people are just to stubborn to realise they are wrong. -Not to mention names or anything... *cough* alpha..*centauri* ...sorry about that I get into those coughing fits these days...

I know! Isn't it just the worst thing when someone simply makes your arguments look so bad that you can no longer logically or credibly reply?

Personally it's never happened to me, but I feel you know what it's like.

PS: You typed it, you didn't actually cough. I can still see my name, you fool.

-AC

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Repeat:

Warning KMC people!!! Warning!! Another Adam Poe stupid analogy is about to take place. Tread with caution.

😆😆

Yes it would be more "acceptable" for you to go back in time and give my dad a rubber, than it would for you to go back in time and punch my mom in the stomach a couple of times 4-6 weeks after my father knocked her up.

It would also be more "acceptable" for you to go back in time and preach to a bunch of hippies who supported Roe vs Wade that abstinence is a better way to "prevent" unplanned pregnancy, as opposed to a women having an abortion. Come to think of it, travelling back in time and giving such a sermon would probably be quite beneficial to modern society. I mean..it would have helped "prevent" a bunch of "intelligent" dinks with stupid opinions like "homosexuality is genetic", and "a women has the right to choose" from being born.😉

None of this really matters anyway, seeing as how we both know that our little scenarios are a bit silly and illogical. I mean...everyone knows that the only way to travel back in time is if you have a Delorian, a flux capacitor, and assistance from Christopher Lloyd. Duhhh...(sic) 🙄

Fin

It is your argument that having an abortion is wrong because it prevents the development of human life, but you are not actually opposed to the prevention of human life, just certain methods at certain times.

Congratulations on proving that you are consistent in your hypocrisy.