I feel it is everyones right to decided how they feel about this issue. My wife and I are personally against Abortion. However I feel it is also wrong to force another to follow my view. Women have and should always have the right to decide this issue. Not other people and certainly not Politicians who use this issue for their own gain. Especially when they will never follow through with their positions. They can't aford to lose votes from their base by taking a solid postion. Ask Bush if he will appoint a judge to over turn Roe Vs Wade. What's his answer? I will not use a litmus test when deciding a judge appointment. It would political suicide to say outright that he wants Roe V Wade over turned. A large chunk of his base would break off. It is true for a good many Politicians Not just Bush.
Basically... Rights for the people not rights taken away. Religious agendas should never enter into it. IMHO
Good points. Good points. But I think Bush is wanting to get rid of most abortions because he thinks it is morally wrong. People should use protection (birth control, etc) and if it is an accident, then they shouldn't kill the baby...however, in rape cases it is different. But would Bush totally ban abortion altogether if he could?
There are circumstances in which the woman is simply not ready to deal with raising a child. Like for example, if a 14 year old girl gets pregnant accidentally, which does happen, IMO it's just cruel to force her to have a baby. It'd ruin her life. And the child would probably not end up being very happy either.
I doubt that Bush really cares about "life," because if he did, he wouldn't be sending American soldiers off to Iraq and Afghanistan to die.
The 14-year old girl should have been well protected or not have been doing it. She could give it up for adoption...Again, you make it sound like Bush is making American soldiers go off and fight...in a sense yes, but it is not a draft...they signed up want to fight for this country. Honor that...that is why we don't have a draft and need one...I have explained this many times. And don't pull that argument, saying if Bush cares about babies than he shouldn't be sending Americans off to die...well, if your for saving our troops, then you should be for saving babie's lives too. You see how I can turn that around on you?
Originally posted by hunchy
The 14-year old girl should have been well protected or not have been doing it. She could give it up for adoption...Again, you make it sound like Bush is making American soldiers go off and fight...in a sense yes, but it is not a draft...they signed up want to fight for this country. Honor that...that is why we don't have a draft and need one...I have explained this many times. And don't pull that argument, saying if Bush cares about babies than he shouldn't be sending Americans off to die...well, if your for saving our troops, then you should be for saving babie's lives too. You see how I can turn that around on you?
Fetuses are not "babies", you see how I can turn that around on YOU?
Yeah, go ahead and use the "she should have been protected or not doing it!!!!" argument if you want, but here in real life, it doesn't always work out that way. I've known perfectly nice girls who have simply fallen in with the wrong crowd, and gotten into drugs/booze/whatever. It's not as simple as "she should use protection" or "she should wait for marriage!". Kids are kids, they do dumb things sometimes, and they deserve a second chance. Plus, from what I've heard, childbirth in itself is a very, very painful thing to go through. And if I were a female, and I was to get pregnant at a young age, or by accident, I would almost feel less guilty just pulling it out before the damn thing was aware of its own existence than giving it to a foster family. Adoption is not all it's cracked up to be.
Oh come on, as soon as babies are created...they are human beings...just because they are not born yet does not mean they aren't human. Yes accidents can happen, but with having a baby there is no second chances...There are cases in which I understand why they would want to have an abortion...I just don't think its right myself...
No, they are not human beings. Humans, yes, but not human BEINGS, there is a difference. They are no more conscious of their own existence than a tree or a rock. I've made this argument many times before, which is, every true animal on the face of the planet is more intelligent and indeed "alive" than a fetus in the first three months of pregnancy. Do you eat meat? 'Cos if you do, you can't really complain about people killing "babies". A cow is a much more self-conscious animal than a barely-conceived human fetus. I don't understand what you mean by "with having a baby there is no second chances." We're not talking about having a baby here, we're talking about a dumb mistake some teenage girls might make. If somebody gets addicted to crack, that's a mistake in the same sense this is, but you don't say "there's no second chances for you, since you screwed up!" and make them stay on crack of the rest of their lives. Very few people under the age of 18 have sex with the intention of actually having children... Hence we are not talking about "babies", we are talking about the actual living person.
They are not fully developed, but they are created and thus they are human beings. Dude animals are obviously different than humans...Don't connect abortion with eating meat...there is no connection there...When I said no second chances, with crack you do it and it is overwith, there is more than one chance to either continue to do it or to not...you can also become addicted...but then you have many chances to stop...with a baby...you've created it...there's no taking it back...only having it or killing it...You say its not killing it...then what is it?
I never said it wasn't killing it, what I said is that it's no worse than killing a cow or a pig... Which it isn't. I don't understand why people insist that animals are different from people. Humans are just animals with big egos. Have you ever actually met an animal? You don't seem like you have. Some animals are very smart, and obviously know who and what they are. Fetuses don't have brains, nor do they know who and what they are. Killing a fetus is not killing a human being. If you amputate your leg, that's made of human cells, but it's not a human because of that... Same idea. Only the leg is fully developed.
Dude, you've got some strange theories. I like animals a lot...but killing a human baby is yes, worse than killing an animal. Human beings are more important. Big egos...Actually, we extremly smarter and if you believe the bible we were created to govern over them, and they also have no spirits...but if you DON'T believe the Bible...than we still are the superior species...so I would still kill an animal over a human...I have many animals...I know what animals are...Cutting off a leg, full of cells, is not like killing a whole species of a human being...the leg is part of you...cutting off your leg would be like cutting off the baby's leg actually...I think I'm done debating you...Your ideas go far beyond which I wish to debate and I will not change your mind...plus you listen to Rage Against the Machine..but that's beside the point.
I always wonder what might be..... after all, I was once a ball of cells, as were you, Mozart, De Vinci, Newton, Caesar, Bush, Lenin, my class mates, the people on the bus.... we all started there, its a stage of life, of human life, and terminating it is the same, to me, as ending a human life, as there is infinite human potential there.....
Originally posted by The Omega
[1]Myth> “Hell, to me it sounds like you would allow partial birth abortion.”You just LOVE to put words into peoples mouths, don’t you? Can’t you debate without thnking you KNOW what your opponents think?
BF asks: "Why should she be forced to suffer more?"
You reply: ”See, you are saying that it would benefit her to kill the baby”[2]No. BF don’t want a rape-victim to suffer more than she already has. You make it sound as if the woman is just killing a live born baby cause she has a bad hair-day.
Man, you’re a HORRIBLE debater.1) YOU see. Well, who gave you a monopoly on definitions?
2) Ah, a male. HOW convenient to force your views on women, views that will NEVER ever influence your life. It’s the woman’s body, deal with it. There is nothing equivalent to pregnancy for males…
“They both were involved in the creation of another life.”
Ehrm, they had sex! I don’t know about YOU, but when I have (safe) sex I don’t think “oh, I’m now pretending to be involved in the creation of another life.” 😆
1. That quote is out of context. If you read the whole thing, it says, "Hell, to me it sounds like you would allow partial birth abortion. I hope this is not true, because that is just sick." This doesn't actually say that I'm saying that he said that. It was a guess on what his views 'may be' since he doesn't believe a fetus is human until it is actually born. That is why I was wondering if he believes in partial birth abortion.
2. That is exactly what I was trying to tell him.
3. a. I'm not saying that those are the definititions for baby, kid, fetus, etc. I'm just saying that I believe that all of those are human life.
b. Ah, a pro-abortionist. HOW convenient to force your views on a fetus, views that will NEVER ever allow them to live its life. It’s the baby's life, deal with it.
There is nothing equivalent to pregnancy for males…
“They both were involved in the creation of another life.”
Ehrm, they had sex! I don’t know about YOU, but when I have (safe) sex I don’t think “oh, I’m now pretending to be involved in the creation of another life.” 😆
so what people who never want kids arent allowed to enjoy sex? people will have sex whether they are responsible enough to or not. Nothing anybody says or does is going to change that. But if someones not "responsible" enough to have sex they arent going to be responsibl;e enough to be a parent either or the courier either.
I think thats the point. No, people who don't want kids are allowed to enjoy it, but if they don't want kids, they need to realise that there are steps that can be taken that go along way towards insuring that a pregnancy does not occur. It is called responsibility, and if for some reason they are not responsible when it come to sex, they should then take responsibility for the consequences.
Originally posted by The Omega
Evy_O> I doubt you can find a scientist who claims a foetus is not living. However it is indeed not autonomous, it can’t survive without the womans’ body.
Seeing that I'm studying bio, and we did that, and the book was written BY scientists, I very much can find more than one who claim it. Of course I have no sites to link you at so well, you can believe what you want about it. (and I might have mis-expressed myself, cause I do that in greek: it's not a living BEING, it is living as in, it's heart is beating 😖)
And as said, there are certain conditions under which something is considered living, and autonomy is one of them. So by this definition, it isn't 😖 But this is a whole different topic, and there is no absolute answer yet, cause there are arguments on both sides 😬
But its potential, its fate, its what ever one wants to call it. What is autonomy really? Many might have different opinions, there are people who are totally dependent on iron lungs to survive, metallic wombs almost, they can think, but in terms or real autonomy they have very little. But I feel it is less about definitions like that, potential, pure potential is the thing. Every one, great, not so great, everyone we see, everyone we know, everyone we might love started of as a ball of non- autonomous cells, this pseudo "unlife". Granted the finished product, a human baby might be very different, but it is all steps on the same path, that ball of cells at the possible termination stage has an excellent chance of becoming a fully functioning, thinking, feeling person like all of us. It is in my views life.