Abortion

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) No I wouldn't support the grown girl wanting an abortion. That doesn't put me in any "crapper."

Why fight for her rights to live if you're just going to f*ck her over when she's an adult? Explain.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) You're arguing my thoughts and feelings, what I believe ....again.

I've yet to see you disprove/refute the biological points that I made about conception of a human zygote from sperm and egg having all the characteristics of a human life (which we deem as defendable and having the right to live.).

It doesn't. How do you even begin to suggest a zygote, which ISN'T human, has all the characteristics we have? You maybe, because I'm not entirely sure you're post-amoeba, but in general, how do you even think it sensible to suggest a CELL carries everything we do?

You confuse potential to become something with being it. The future is conceptual, it doesn't actually exist.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Last chance, or I'm gonna consider it a forfeit. (maybe I'll get the moderators to do a poll of who people think won, because all you're doing is dodging.)

I've spent tens of pages in this thread, as have others, posting proof after proof against you, Whobdamandog, Julie, The Black Ghost etc. To say you are going to consider it a forfeit is up to you, because you're always on the back foot, and I'll consider it a forfeit because I predict it's just so you can avoid answering my first question.

The proof is in your post: You are suggesting a zygote is a equal. It's a cell, a cell is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ORGANISM.

-AC

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have a better one...

Mankind is more than two women.

Mine is more correct than yours.

That also considers the body of one of those women the property of the other.

FAIL.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I talk as if science is infallible against "Well I believe...", because it is. "I believe I can fly.", you can believe that all you want, but you can't.

You can believe cells are equal to human foetuses, and foetuses to human beings all you want...but you're wrong.

It doesn't. It's sustained, kept, housed and created by a host being. It's no more alive than a man in a coma, less so, in fact. Alive, not "living" in the sense that you or I are.

No it's not. Killing someone with malicious and murderous intent, is murder. Killing someone by accident is manslaughter, abortion is nothing to do with any of those.

It's factually not murder, I'm not sure why people have such hard times grasping that. It fits none of the qualifications of murder. Even if foetuses were human beings, it would still not be murder.

It's frivolous killing if you WANT to call it anything derogatory.

Because you do not want to.

A life, a conscious, developed mind...earned knowledge. Lots of stuff that a foetus doesn't have, including the little fact of; being a human being, not a human foetus.

No matter how much science? So basically you're saying "It's wrong, despite science."? I think abortion is neither right nor wrong, it just IS. You may disagree or agree with the reasons behind abortion, but abortion is not the problem. You have an issue with people.

I think it's up to the living, breathing human being who created the bloody thing, because it is. You cannot say "Oh but for rape it's ok.", because it's still the same foetus that you believe feels pain and shouldn't be gotten rid of because it's easier.

And that...is why you fail.

I'm not a cold-hearted robot, I'm not the one outside abortion clinics abusing women. I live my life and love most of the people in it, what another woman does with a foetus is factually none of my business, or yours.

-AC

I don't condone abusing women who use abortion either.

I think you use science too liberally, science isn't just facts, it is also therories that "could be true". The big bang theory is science, but it can't be proven.

Back to the life thing, prove it. Prove an unborn baby isn't alive. your definition sounds logically flawed to me. So if a baby isn't born until it is outside of the mother? That is dumb...what about parasites? they depend on hosts. are they not alive? so prove that the unborn baby is not a life. Prove it doesn;t have a conscience during incubation. Obviously it doesn't in the early stages, but they do have brain activity later in the pregnancy. No one ever has disproved this nor will they ever. Likewise we can't really prove it. We can however both argue until we pass out, but neither us have really provided solid evidence. So if neither of us provide proof what is right? I can't prove it is alive and you can't prove it isn't? Do we just kill them anyway and hope they aren't? That's my beef with the science part. It isn't proven that they aren't a life. (by your definition)

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Back to the life thing, prove it. Prove an unborn baby isn't alive. your definition sounds logically flawed to me.

Prove I said it wasn't "alive" and you do have a deal.

A tree is alive, a man being kept alive on machinery...is alive. A foetus is "alive". We have LIVES, foetuses don't, trees don't. They just exist.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So if a baby isn't born until it is outside of the mother? That is dumb...what about parasites? they depend on hosts. are they not alive? so prove that the unborn baby is not a life.

You're getting very, very confused. Parasites for one, are not that different from foetuses (Oooooh!). Secondly, I never said it wasn't ALIVE, I said it doesn't have a life in the sense that you or I do.

It cannot walk, talk, interact, think properly, survive on its own etc. It does not have A LIFE.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Prove it doesn;t have a conscience during incubation. Obviously it doesn't in the early stages, but they do have brain activity later in the pregnancy. No one ever has disproved this nor will they ever. Likewise we can't really prove it. We can however both argue until we pass out, but neither us have really provided solid evidence. So if neither of us provide proof what is right? I can't prove it is alive and you can't prove it isn't? Do we just kill them anyway and hope they aren't? That's my beef with the science part. It isn't proven that they aren't alive.

I'm going to just reply to you when you are capable of differentiating between having a life and being alive. Because not only can you not, but you are entirely unaware of what I mean by the two, despite explaining it.

Let me run with something though; if you know it doesn't have brain activity in early stages, why are you against abortion THEN? Then your foetus argument is out the window.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Prove I said it wasn't "alive" and you do have a deal.

A tree is alive, a man being kept alive on machinery...is alive. A foetus is "alive". We have LIVES, foetuses don't, trees don't. They just exist.

You're getting very, very confused. Parasites for one, are not that different from foetuses (Oooooh!). Secondly, I never said it wasn't ALIVE, I said it doesn't have a life in the sense that you or I do.

It cannot walk, talk, interact, think properly, survive on its own etc. It does not have A LIFE.

I'm going to just reply to you when you are capable of differentiating between having a life and being alive. Because not only can you not, but you are entirely unaware of what I mean by the two, despite explaining it.

Let me run with something though; if you know it doesn't have brain activity in early stages, why are you against abortion THEN? Then your foetus argument is out the window.

-AC

Semantics. Life, Alive whatever.

I meant what you were getting at, in that because it isn't as aware of you or me it isn't sentient. Neither of us cannot prove it. I apologize for misusing the terms.

As for the brain thing, so what? That only proves that you are potentially (which I can't prove, but you can't prove on yoru behalf either) wrong about them not having a "life" or identity. They are still "Alive" before hand, and stopping the process is not up to use to decide. If we were intended to be able to abort, we would be able to do it naturally. Now that brings up another point. Abortions are harmful to women too. They can substain perforated bladders, bowels, and even an increase in chance of developing breast cancer. The cancer part just might be a sign from nature to stop doing unnatural things? the body changes so much when pregnant that stopping the process could be the reason for increase of cancer, or it could be a coincidence.

One to fourteen percent of women require a blood transfusion due to bleeding from an abortion.

Mild fever and sometimes death occurs when there is an infection from an abortion. This happens in anywhere from 1 in 4 women to 1 in 50 women.

About 1 out of 20 women suffer this during an abortion. This causes you to have nearly a 50/50 chance of miscarrying in your next pregnancy if it is not treated properly during that pregnancy. A high incidence of cervical damage from the abortion procedure has raised the incidence of miscarriage 30-40% in women who have had abortions.

Women suffer a perforated uterus in between 1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400 abortions. This almost always causes peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen), similar to having a ruptured appendix.

Women who have had two or more abortions have twice as many first trimester miscarriages in later pregnancies. There is a ten-fold increase in the number of second trimester miscarriages in pregnancies that follow a vaginal abortion.

Placenta previa occurs 6 to 15 times more often after a woman has had an abortion. In this condition your baby’s placenta lies over the exit from the uterus so that the placenta has to be delivered before the baby can get out. This causes the mother to bleed severely while the baby almost always dies, unless your obstetrician recognizes this condition and removes the baby by Caesarean section at just the right time in the pregnancy.

Frequently after an abortion, women suffer a range of mental and psychological problems. These may include recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse. These problems may occur days to years later.

If your doctor leaves pieces of the baby, placenta, umbilical cord, or amniotic sac in your body, you may develop pain, bleeding, or a low grade fever. Besides antibiotics and possible hospitalization, you may require additional surgery to remove these remaining pieces.

You may develop DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulopathy) from your abortion. This means your blood does not clot and you will bleed uncontrollably. DIC is extremely life threatening and difficult to treat. It occurs in 2 out of 1,000 second trimester abortions.

After an abortion you may become sterile. This happens in 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 50 women. The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one abortion is 3 to 4 times greater than that among women who have not aborted.(again I am only noting these to prove that it is not natural for the body, not to argue that this is bad, because a woman who aborts quite frankly doesn't deserve children anyway)

Also An ectopic pregnancy is any pregnancy that occurs outside the uterus. After an abortion, you are 8 to 20 times more likely to have an ectopic pregnancy. If not discovered soon enough, an ectopic pregnancy ruptures, and you can bleed to death if you do not have emergency surgery. Statistics show a 30% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after one abortion and a 160% increased risk of ectopic pregnancy after two or more abortions. There has been a threefold increase in ectopic pregnancies in the U.S. since abortion was legalized. In 1970, the incidence was 4.8 per 1,000 live births. By 1980 it was 14.5 per 1,000 births. Maybe another coincidence. I can't state as a fact that this will happen, but I wouldn't take my chances. My point is that it looks pretty unnatural to abort, and nature doesn't have a right or wrong thats true, but we as humans do. We have the power to seperate right and wrong, and it is a pretty standard thing to say that killing is wrong. Fetuses are alive. aborting them is stopping them from living.

"In medical practice, there are few surgical procedures given so little attention and so underrated in its potential hazards as abortion. It is a commonly held view that complications are inevitable."

- Dr. Warren Hern, world renowned abortionist

AC I know you are very intelligent, but it doesn't make you correct here. No one knows what is going on for sure during gestation, not even you.

Originally posted by Devil King
That also considers the body of one of those women the property of the other.

FAIL.

I think you're missing it.

Mankind:

the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.

You are wanting to split hairs and talk about it referring only to men when it is usually not used to refer to men only.

I usually use the word "humanity" or "the human race" to get my point across to avoid confusion...

In other words....form the onset, you missed Spidey-dude's context of his use of the word "man". In his case, he was using the word to refer to humankind. You used it to refer to just males.

Now how do you put it......???

that's right...

FAIL!

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Semantics. Life, Alive whatever.

It's not "Whatever". If you're arguing against my point, argue against the correct one.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
I meant what you were getting at, in that because it isn't as aware of you or me it isn't sentient. Neither of us cannot prove it. I apologize for misusing the terms.

We have no reason to believe it is, and there have been tests done since...forever. It's a case of Ockam's Razor.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
As for the brain thing, so what? That only proves that you are potentially (which I can't prove, but you can't prove on yoru behalf either) wrong about them not having a "life" or identity. They are still "Alive" before hand, and stopping the process is not up to use to decide.

It is indeed up to the woman to decide, no other way about it. Even so, what makes you think you have any right to a say then? If she doesn't have any right over her womb, you do not.

You are just assuming the negative, though. There have been enough tests done and nothing that has come back to suggest sentient brains, or we'd know.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
If we were intended to be able to abort, we would be able to do it naturally. Now that brings up another point. Abortions are harmful to women too. They can substain perforated bladders, bowels, and even an increase in chance of developing breast cancer. The cancer part just might be a sign from nature to stop doing unnatural things? the body changes so much when pregnant that stopping the process could be the reason for increase of cancer, or it could be a coincidence.

So don't have an abortion. Why is it an issue? It's not you or your body, or your business, fact. It's none of your business anymore than it's your business if I wanted to watch animal porn. It's not infringing upon you.

Babies can be harmful to women, too. Hence abortion, or are we forgetting that?

Intent is irrelevant. We're able to do lots of things we weren't necessarily "intended" to do. We have medicine because our bodies cannot cope with certain things, what's your view there? Leave it be, because if we can't do it naturally we shouldn't do it at all?

Originally posted by Pezmerga
One to fourteen percent of women require a blood transfusion due to bleeding from an abortion.

Ok, that sucks, but so what? It's none of your business or right to go around saving people.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Mild fever and sometimes death occurs when there is an infection from an abortion. This happens in anywhere from 1 in 4 women to 1 in 50 women.

Death also occurs in child birth, and lots of horrible things can occur post-child birth. Like post-partum depression, for example. We can sit here and tout the positives and negatives all day, but it's irrelevant, because neither of us are ever going to have an abortion.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
About 1 out of 20 women suffer this during an abortion. This causes you to have nearly a 50/50 chance of miscarrying in your next pregnancy if it is not treated properly during that pregnancy. A high incidence of cervical damage from the abortion procedure has raised the incidence of miscarriage 30-40% in women who have had abortions.

There is also the opposite of that, and the woman being fine, which happens to millions of women, I'd imagine. You can't just cite one side as a reason if it's not overwhelming. Why? Because it boils down to the one crucial point; it's none of your business.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Women suffer a perforated uterus in between 1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400 abortions. This almost always causes peritonitis (an inflamed, infected lining of the abdomen), similar to having a ruptured appendix.

1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400? Do you want to make that statistic any bigger? That's not favouring you. really. ONE in 40 isn't even that bad, one in 400 is utterly ludicrous to be basing your argument on.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Women who have had two or more abortions have twice as many first trimester miscarriages in later pregnancies. There is a ten-fold increase in the number of second trimester miscarriages in pregnancies that follow a vaginal abortion.

That's the irresponsible side of abortion usage, it DOES exist, but everyone doesn't have to suffer, and it's not an abortion problem, it's a people problem.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Placenta previa occurs 6 to 15 times more often after a woman has had an abortion. In this condition your baby’s placenta lies over the exit from the uterus so that the placenta has to be delivered before the baby can get out. This causes the mother to bleed severely while the baby almost always dies, unless your obstetrician recognizes this condition and removes the baby by Caesarean section at just the right time in the pregnancy.

Frequently after an abortion, women suffer a range of mental and psychological problems. These may include recurrent dreams of the abortion experience, avoidance of emotional attachment, relationship problems, sleep disturbances, guilt about surviving, memory impairment, hostile outbursts, suicidal thoughts or actions, depression, and substance abuse. These problems may occur days to years later.

This...is...all....POSSIBILITY. Do you not see that? You say women suffer these things as if they factually do, and it's simply a lie. Guilt, flashbacks, bad dreams etc, none of it is by ANY means certain. How do I know this? BECAUSE there are women who have had abortions, and NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY OF THIS.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
If your doctor leaves pieces of the baby, placenta, umbilical cord, or amniotic sac in your body, you may develop pain, bleeding, or a low grade fever. Besides antibiotics and possible hospitalization, you may require additional surgery to remove these remaining pieces.

Yes, there are risks, Pez. What is your argument, man? I have never denied risks, I have simply said...it's not relevant to us. Risks are just that, chance. It's not a guarantee. A woman who has had an abortion could come in here and say "I've felt none of that.", and you could say nothing about it.

Originally posted by Pezmerga
You may develop DIC (disseminated intravascular coagulopathy) from your abortion. This means your blood does not clot and you will bleed uncontrollably. DIC is extremely life threatening and difficult to treat. It occurs in 2 out of 1,000 second trimester abortions.

TWO OUT OF A THOUSAND, Pez. Look how insanely you are reaching here. Two out of a THOUSAND. It's almost not worth considering, it's be biological equal of newspapers trying to scare everyone about asteroids, then following it with..."But there's only a 1 in 400,000,000 chance.".

Originally posted by Pezmerga
After an abortion you may become sterile. This happens in 1 out of 20 to 1 out of 50 women. The risk of secondary infertility among women with at least one abortion is 3 to 4 times greater than that among women who have not aborted.(again I am only noting these to prove that it is not natural for the body, not to argue that this is bad, because a woman who aborts quite frankly doesn't deserve children anyway)

"You may.", "You might.", "You could.". What are you driving at? Things could go wrong, yes. So what?

That's just a ridiculous statement. You brand abortion as this horrible thing, brand any woman who uses it as undeserving of kids...followed by..."But if she's raped, I'll retract every belief I've ever had.". It doesn't add up.

First, I don't necessarily agree that killing is wrong. Types of killing? Yes.

I know for sure what's going on in this debate. You are posting risk after risk, not taking into account how many opposite scenarios those have, with good odds. You contradict yourself so many times with your views on abortion, and that you would still allow it in certain situations.

You are just biased because you have a baby on the way. Either way, you have your opinion, as ridiculous as it is, and you can hold that, but it doesn't negate science. I've no interest in getting into a pages long impasse about risks.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not "Whatever". If you're arguing against my point, argue against the correct one.

We have no reason to believe it is, and there have been tests done since...forever. It's a case of Ockam's Razor.

It is indeed up to the woman to decide, no other way about it. Even so, what makes you think you have any right to a say then? If she doesn't have any right over her womb, you do not.

You are just assuming the negative, though. There have been enough tests done and nothing that has come back to suggest sentient brains, or we'd know.

So don't have an abortion. Why is it an issue? It's not you or your body, or your business, fact. It's none of your business anymore than it's your business if I wanted to watch animal porn. It's not infringing upon you.

Babies can be harmful to women, too. Hence abortion, or are we forgetting that?

Intent is irrelevant. We're able to do lots of things we weren't necessarily "intended" to do. We have medicine because our bodies cannot cope with certain things, what's your view there? Leave it be, because if we can't do it naturally we shouldn't do it at all?

Ok, that sucks, but so what? It's none of your business or right to go around saving people.

Death also occurs in child birth, and lots of horrible things can occur post-child birth. Like post-partum depression, for example. We can sit here and tout the positives and negatives all day, but it's irrelevant, because neither of us are ever going to have an abortion.

There is also the opposite of that, and the woman being fine, which happens to millions of women, I'd imagine. You can't just cite one side as a reason if it's not overwhelming. Why? Because it boils down to the one crucial point; it's none of your business.

1 out of 40 and 1 out of 400? Do you want to make that statistic any bigger? That's not favouring you. really. ONE in 40 isn't even that bad, one in 400 is utterly ludicrous to be basing your argument on.

That's the irresponsible side of abortion usage, it DOES exist, but everyone doesn't have to suffer, and it's not an abortion problem, it's a people problem.

This...is...all....POSSIBILITY. Do you not see that? You say women suffer these things as if they factually do, and it's simply a lie. Guilt, flashbacks, bad dreams etc, none of it is by ANY means certain. How do I know this? BECAUSE there are women who have had abortions, and NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY OF THIS.

Yes, there are risks, Pez. What is your argument, man? I have never denied risks, I have simply said...it's not relevant to us. Risks are just that, chance. It's not a guarantee. A woman who has had an abortion could come in here and say "I've felt none of that.", and you could say nothing about it.

TWO OUT OF A THOUSAND, Pez. Look how insanely you are reaching here. Two out of a THOUSAND. It's almost not worth considering, it's be biological equal of newspapers trying to scare everyone about asteroids, then following it with..."But there's only a 1 in 400,000,000 chance.".

"You may.", "You might.", "You could.". What are you driving at? Things could go wrong, yes. So what?

That's just a ridiculous statement. You brand abortion as this horrible thing, brand any woman who uses it as undeserving of kids...followed by..."But if she's raped, I'll retract every belief I've ever had.". It doesn't add up.

I know for sure what's going on in this debate. You are posting risk after risk, not taking into account how many opposite scenarios those have, with good odds. You contradict yourself so many times with your views on abortion, and that you would still allow it in certain situations.

You are just biased because you have a baby on the way.

-AC

I was quoting the statistics, and yes some of them are ludicrous, but why omit them just because it looks better? I also know that it is only chance, but it has to mean something isn't right with the whole situation.

The rape issue is a whole different thing. I honestly don't have a good answer for that one. Also the being harmful to the mother is a different story as well. I don't expect mothers to risk their lives, because they can die and so can the baby , so why sacrifice two lives? or even if the baby would live I think in terms of life or death it is acceptable. Life isn't easy though so no answer is going to be great to every problem

I got a weird question for you, it may sound absurd, but lets just speak hypothetically for a minute. Let's say a lady name sue invents a time machine. Sue decides she wants to go back and convince herself to have an abortion because her son isn't a nice guy, he isn't a monster or anything but he plans on putting her in an old folks home or something stupid, so she goes back and does it successfully. Now is she wrong for taking her son out of existence knowing what he grew up to be? If so what is the difference than not knowing exactly? We do know they will grow up to be something, or at least have a life for awhile, so why can we just end it?

Since we don't know if there is a sentient brain I think it is better to stay on the side of caution, if not by making abortions illegal, at least make the window in which you can have one a shorter one. Some states allow it up to 6 months or so along and sometimes no matter how far along! That is absurd. Unless it is for health reasons of course. One life isn't more important than another, but if no one is going to die, why can't the baby be born? Especially after you are that far along...just give it up for adoption.

Anyway Goodnight AC, I enjoyed the discussion, but I have class in the morning.

Because the stats are ludicrous, true, but ludicrous. It's honestly not even a concern.

I...honestly do not care what Sue does. I do not consider any of this my business, I truly do not.

There is nothing worse than someone involving themselves where they are not wanted. Same with abortion.

-AC

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think you're missing it.

Mankind:

the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind.

You are wanting to split hairs and talk about it referring only to men when it is usually not used to refer to men only.

I usually use the word "humanity" or "the human race" to get my point across to avoid confusion...

In other words....form the onset, you missed Spidey-dude's context of his use of the word "man". In his case, he was using the word to refer to humankind. You used it to refer to just males.

Now how do you put it......???

that's right...

FAIL!

No, dumbass.

Mankind, as he was referring to it, was the whole of humanity. But, the whole of humanity does not have the right to tell one woman what she does with her body. It's not mankind's business. Don't let that learning disability drag you down, pal.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Why fight for her rights to live if you're just going to f*ck her over when she's an adult? Explain.

But I'll humor you: Because if my stance is that a zygote, then fetus, then infant is a life worth protecting, I won't change it based on who it's mother is. I'm advocating for the child's chance at a life, nothing more or less.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't. How do you even begin to suggest a zygote, which ISN'T human, has all the characteristics we have? You maybe, because I'm not entirely sure you're post-amoeba, but in general, how do you even think it sensible to suggest a CELL carries everything we do?

Seeing as we are talking about human eggs and sperm that form the zygote, which is a cell, which in turn is part of an organism that is an individual form of life... I see no err in calling that zygote a human zygote/human cell, part of the human organism that has now been formed through fertilization of sperm and egg.

So not every zygote would be human, no. But the ones coming from humans, made from human egg and sperm would be correctly categorized as ...human!

You've yet to prove otherwise except to say "Because I don't think so." You can't change the species that the zygote is part of. It's human.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You confuse potential to become something with being it. The future is conceptual, it doesn't actually exist.

You confuse potential to be something with process of development of something.

Potential is two people who might have sex. They have the sperm and egg inside of them.

Once they've had sex and the sperm and egg have joined and a zygote is formed, you've moved past "potential for" into "development of". This is very basic, surely you can't be misunderstanding it?

Once it's fertilized, it is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. You've gone from "conceptual future, it doesn't actually exist" to "concrete present, it actually does exist." Getting it yet?

Finally, this is a new debate between me an you. Don't bring up whob or whoever else. I've listed some fairly basic biological facts that you've yet to dispute. If they're so easy to disprove then you shouldn't have too much trouble, should you?

Or will you resort to saying it's all on the other pages or "OMGFTWBBQtehReliGusss111" as a cop-out to dodge the simple facts I've posted?

As you continue to post more and more but say less and less as a response to my points on page 676, you seem to be the one on the back foot in this debate.

Originally posted by Devil King
I do not think that any amount of preaching at children is going to prevent them from having sex before they get married. I can only assume you enjoyed the sex you had before you got married. And now that you have experienced that, you see fit to tell others you were wrong for experiencing it, despite it having led you to a place where you identified it as wrong. Telling a person they must enter into a life long contract with a person at such a young age simply to satisfy a sexual urge only leads to more divorce.

It's the same reason that abstinence education fails, miserably, when it's used to combat the spread of AIDS. "Don't have sex!" only results in those peopple getting AIDS. "Use a condom if you're gonna do it", and providing the condom, is a much more effective education since telling people not to do it simply doesn't work. And it's often the same people who cry about kids and condoms who want to protest abortion.

As for biology, I think it's funny how biology is only considered when it's the child's. Biology is just as important when considering the wishes of the mother. It's her body, it's her descision.

People who stand outside clinics and spit and curse women who walk through those doors are standing there offering mothers who don't go through with it a free 2nd hand crib or a box of baby clothes, but why aren't they also there for the women who do? Because it's all about the protestor, not the baby. They don't comfort the woman who comes out after the abortion, they spit at her and tell her she's going to hell. They ignore the very harsh reality that 99% of women endure after deciding to go through with an abortion. And that descision is typically made after a lot of contemplation. Too many people think these women go in for this painful and life-changing procedure as an after thought, like it was a descision reached as simply as it is to flush the toilet after they've gone to the bathroom.

I agree with almost everything you said there. Kids will have sex even if abstinence-only is taught. People standing outside abortion clinics yelling and spitting don't have a clue, and the woman who's just gone through the abortion should be loved, comforted, and helped in any way possible.

But that's all off-topic. The question: A human zygote, formed by egg and sperm, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.

Can you prove otherwise? Or prove why that doesn't matter and it should be allowed to be killed anyway?

That's what we are talking about here.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
1.) This totally is off-topic and has nothing to do with whether or not a fertilized egg is "a human life" and should be protected. Stop dragging this off-topic.

But I'll humor you: Because if my stance is that a zygote, then fetus, then infant is a life worth protecting, I won't change it based on who it's mother is. I'm advocating for the child's chance at a life, nothing more or less.

A fertilised egg is not a human life, how stupid you'd have to be to genuinely believe otherwise, I don't know. That, or entirely ignorant to all science.

Second, why are you protecting her chance at life? For what purpose? Not too scared to answer are you?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
2.) Ok, first: you say a zygote isn't human.

Do you think, honestly now, that a zygote is a human? A cell is a HUMAN? I refuse to believe you are that retarded.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
A zygote is a cell, the smallest structural unit of an organism. And an organism is an individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus. Or Human.

One zygote = A human being. You believe this?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Seeing as we are talking about human eggs and sperm that form the zygote, which is a cell, which in turn is part of an organism that is an individual form of life... I see no err in calling that zygote a human zygote/human cell, part of the human organism that has now been formed through fertilization of sperm and egg.

So by that rationale, a human toenail is also human, since it's part of what makes us, and is from a human.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
So not every zygote would be human, no. But the ones coming from humans, made from human egg and sperm would be correctly categorized as ...human!

Human as in, created by. Within the species of.

Not an ACTUAL human. A "HUMAN" hair is not a human, it just means hair...from a human. Just like a cell/zygote. It's not an actual human. It's within the genus.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You've yet to prove otherwise except to say "Because I don't think so." You can't change the species that the zygote is part of. It's human.

But not A human. The zygote ITSELF is not human, it is...cellular. Falling under the umbrella of human genus does not make you human, or a human.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
You confuse potential to be something with process of development of something.

Potential is two people who might have sex. They have the sperm and egg inside of them.

It's also a zygote, it's also a foetus. Nothing more than a potential something else. You are focusing on what it COULD become in a CONCEPTUAL future, not what it IS, in the living now. Why? Cos it suits you. FACT is, you don't care about foetuses, only your beliefs and forcing them onto women.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Once they've had sex and the sperm and egg have joined and a zygote is formed, you've moved past "potential for" into "development of". This is very basic, surely you can't be misunderstanding it?

You've moved past potential to create a zygote into the successful creation of a zygote. That zygote now has the potential to become a foetus. That's how it goes.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Once it's fertilized, it is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing. You've gone from "conceptual future, it doesn't actually exist" to "concrete present, it actually does exist." Getting it yet?

Complete? It's not complete. Whatever exists in the NOW, that's what we're dealing with. If it's a zygote, it's a zygote. Not a future foetus, not a human being, not a baby. A zygote. You are projecting, and that's ridiculous.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Finally, this is a new debate between me an you. Don't bring up whob or whoever else. I've listed some fairly basic biological facts that you've yet to dispute. If they're so easy to disprove then you shouldn't have too much trouble, should you?

You are disproving them by even bringing them up. A zygote is not a human being or HUMAN just because it's under our genetic umbrella. Human hairs, toenails and mucus are not "human" an more than a zygote. It's potential.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Or will you resort to saying it's all on the other pages or "OMGFTWBBQtehReliGusss111" as a cop-out to dodge the simple facts I've posted?

You've not posted facts. You've posted the idea that a zygote is a complete human. How can you even propose that?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
As you continue to post more and more but say less and less as a response to my points on page 676, you seem to be the one on the back foot in this debate.

So we're judging quantity with victory? I've posted more in this thread than perhaps anybody else, and if I've learned one thing, it's that you can't make people see facts that they are dead set on ignoring. Why would I continue to post when you will never admit you are wrong? It's a waste of time.

It should be allowed to be killed because it's not your womb. You shouldn't be allowed to drive cos I dislike cars, or speak because I dislike your voice. Ridiculous isn't it? You may like to think otherwise, but you do not have any bearing on anyone else's life.

This:

Is not this:

How is the first one, the same as the second?

-AC

Originally posted by Devil King
No, dumbass.

Reported.

Originally posted by Devil King
Mankind, as he was referring to it, was the whole of humanity. But, the whole of humanity does not have the right to tell one woman what she does with her body. It's not mankind's business. Don't let that learning disability drag you down, pal.

Why do you need to make your posts complex and ambiguous? Why not just say what you wanted to say like you did above? If you point is lost to the masses, then what good is the point?

Of course this sentence makes sense to you, but it most certainly does not to most people:

"Mankind if more than one woman."

What the does that mean?

"That also considers the body of one of those women the property of the other."

The "other"? What? What is the other? I interpreted that as meaning males who force their female partners to get an abortion.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I'm gonna leave my faith out of this debate. It's not necessary to win it.

that quote makes you look like a serious dumbass and screams volumes louder about your inability to debate more so than your redundant filler rambling posting approach you take here. anyway....

Originally posted by sithsaber408 I said "sperm joining to an egg constituted a newly created life". You are implying then that sperm+egg doesn't = newly created life?[/B]

no, it constitutes the initiation of the creation of a new life. i know its an off analogy, but think of a construction company breaking ground on a new piece of land. do you call what they just did a house/building? its seemingly inevitable that the job will get done, but none the less it still is what it is, and what a newly fertilized egg IS is simply a zygote.

Originally posted by sithsaber408 (because I'm a Christian, I guess?)[/B]

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not skipping it. Teenage pregnancy can happen by accident, or it can happen through irresponsibility. It's no use saying "You f*cked up, you deal with it.", cos who are you to them? It's their choice, their vagina, their foetus.

Safe sex CAN prevent it, ok great. So what?

Because that's what it is meant to be, objective EDUCATION.

"Here are the options, use whichever you desire.".

Not "education" as a means to push what YOU think they should choose. Education isn't meant to instill fear, but knowledge. Knowledge that "Yes, abortion is an option and in any sane, fair country, you are free to use it.".

It's still being debated cos people are idiots, that's why this thread lives. The pro-lifers emerge once in a while and they get whooped. There's nothing necessarily left to discuss.

-AC

Then education is totally pointless among safe sex ed if none learn the concequences. That is basically my entire point. Logically and Morally, abortion is wrong in all aspects when it comes to sex. However, I do believe AIDS/disease and Rape should be the only exceptions.

I'll just leave it at that. And that last part of yours should be completely ignored as it is just an opinion. Yes, it's obvious but I can see your taking this seriously as I am trying to have a friendly debate with you. Just remember that I respect your belief in abortion just like respect the belief of atheist atheist.

Morally? Morals are subjective, Jac, and irresponsibility is a problem, but you are a male who is trying to restrict ALL women based on the idiocy of others.

Males most of all (Except for the possible fathers, maybe) have utterly no right to go around saying what a woman can do with her foetus.

You're meant to be educating kids into what options are there no matter what, not scaring them into not taking one.

-AC

Originally posted by JacopeX
You see, Pregnancy cannot "just happen" as long as you don't stop to think of the consequences of unsafe sex. And yes, I believe those that were irresponsible to get pregnant should deal with just so they can learn the lesson alone and to decrease the amount of teenage pregancy as it rates pretty high now days. So what? Then we do not always need abortion for these type of situations. To tell you the truth, that is the only problem I have with abortion. Irresponsibility.

So basically, you're using a baby-to-be to teach some teenagers you don't even know a lesson. Just to make sure those filthy, filthy teens won't have sex without a condom. Nice.

You sleep better at night if you know someone else sleeps worse?

This is a boy who is still a year away, at the least, from being a legal adult, and he thinks he is in any position to be teaching anyone anything, especially lessons.

-AC

Originally posted by Dulcie
So basically, you're using a baby-to-be to teach some teenagers you don't even know a lesson. Just to make sure those filthy, filthy teens won't have sex without a condom. Nice.

You sleep better at night if you know someone else sleeps worse?

*has "filthy, filthy" sex with Dulcie "without a condom" and impregnates her*

Sorry, no money for child support...you're on your own.