Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Nammy]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else. It is her body. The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.
If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?
And then of course there is rape: violent, incestual, gang, forced, (all of the above): is abortion okay in this case? Or still no?
Abortion to save the woman because of health risks?: Yes or No?

Just a starter if anyone wants to pipe in with their opinion.

[InterestedParty]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else.


What about the man who impregnated her? Should he have any say in the matter? If not, why not?

Please don't use the whole "she would have to be the one to carry the baby for nine months" excuse. Nine months is *only* nine months. Hardly a substantial time period. For most of you that equals two semesters of school.

I find it amazing that men don't freak out about not having their rights as the father considered in this.

[USMC the Almighty]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else.

What about the father.

It is her body.

I don't want to tell a woman what to do with HER body. If she wants to pierce her body 100 times...go for it. If she wants to get tattoos....more power to her. If she wants to get fat by over-eating....I say eat up.

The baby inside is not her body. It is the baby's body.

The unborn entity within the pregnant woman's body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and — with the case of a male conceptus — a penis and two testicles.

Furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman's body. Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others.

It's also important to note that the government tells women what to do with their bodies in other aspects of the law in order to maintain a just and orderly society by limiting some moral agencies: ex. prostitution, suicide, smoking crack, I could go on and on...


The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.

The notion that it doesn’t count as a human because it is not completely developed is simply ridiculous. It is without question living entity. It has a brain, and shortly upon conception, it forms its own, independent heart beat.

A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

In addition, the zygote has its own unique genetic code, thus being a unique human individual (46 chromosomes).

If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

It's all about self-responsibility. A woman should be able to kill a living entity simply because she's not ready for the pressure? I have two responses to this:

(1) Then she shouldn't be getting pregnant

Our entire lives our centered around the principle of responsibility and self-reliance. You don’t want to work hard and get a degree and just want to smoke pot all day? Fine by me, but I don’t want to hear any complaints that you weren’t given a fair shot.

Every American is expected to take responsibility for their own lives and when they are inevitably faced with adversity, you will ultimately emerge a stronger, more wiser person.

But instead, abortion bails out these irresponsible women who are more concerned about sexual pleasure than they are the killing of what could potentially be the next Einstein, or the doctor who cures cancer, or the guy who discovers how to run cars on water. Again, why does this potential human not have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”


(2) The baby will put a burden on the mpother? Well isn’t that convenient? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could simply get rid of every human we thought to be in annoying or burdensome? Under this logic, the killing of all humans we find to be financially burdensome or emotionally taxing should be promoted.

And then of course there is rape: violent, incestual, gang, forced, (all of the above): is abortion okay in this case? Or still no?

This is a tough one. I still think that it is wrong for the woman to simply kill a living being because it's inconvenient to her, but then again, it wasn't her choice so my entire issue of self-reponsibility is out. I tend to have more sympathy for women in these cases, though I believe the right move would be to have the child and put it up for adoption.

Abortion to save the woman because of health risks?: Yes or No?

Depends. Again, I tend to have more sympathy in these instances.

[InterestedParty]

Bravo USMC.

Just plain BRAVO!

[n0spam4me]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

[USMC the Almighty]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

The irony hurts. You cite the Declaration of Independence which guarantees the American preservation of LIFE in addition to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You then complain about gov't intrusion. My guess is that you also support tax spikes, social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc.

Irony.

[Enlightened One]

Abortion is taking life. When a cell divides in half it shows basic life functions, like.. trying to grow and survive. And when someone aborts that, it's killing the cell, right? I am pro life all day long. Who are we to say that life needs to be extinguished? in certian situations like war, although we are killing our fellow man, we are perserving a way of life we are used to. When we kill off a life that never had the opportunity to decide if it wants to be here or not, that's taking away someones destiny, and that my friends is wrong!

[Nammy]

What if the mother's life is on the line?

[Enlightened One]

What if the mother's life is on the line?

Death is inevitable, As much as I am opposed to death making the ones that are unavoidable, as compassionate as possible would be a must if it was up to me. I wish we could not have such hard decsions as those, but the reality of it is that we cannot. No life is not pro life.

[1krazykapt]

As an adopded child have a strong stance an the issue. Because if abortion was leagle in 50's and early 60's i might not be here. Pro life for ever.

[palerider]

The issue is not how you define “life”; but rather how the law defines a “person.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Here is the definition of "person" from various legal dictionaries:


http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=person&type=1

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=dictionary.lp.findlaw.com&topic=e4/e4b1efffd2c970a94531d44ee63d3d3b

person 1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being

natural person - A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation.

There is little doubt that unborns are human beings at whatever stage of development they happen to be and the law makes it clear that all one need be, in order to be a person, in the eyes of the law, is a human being.

[palerider]

No. It is how the law defines a “person” under the Constitution. As Justice Blackmun stated in Roe v. Wade, “the word ‘person,’as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973). This conclusion followed a review of both common law and constitutional precedent, as well as known facts of fetal development advanced by the appellee and amicus curiae arguing that a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at pp. 133-157.

First, the constitution does not define what is or is not a person. The declaration of independence establishes as a defining principle of this nation the idea that we are endowed by our creator, that is, we come into being with the right to life , liberty and the persuit of happiness. Those being in the order they are for a very specific reason.

Interesting how you cherry pick the words of Justice Blackmun in an attempt to make your point. If your point isn't made by the entire statement, in context, your point isn't made. Justice Blackmun said:

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

Later in the decision he says:

"Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection."

In 1972, an argument, of sorts, could be made that unborns were not, indeed, human beings. In fact, an argument could be made, at that time, that the unborn was a part of its mother's body. Medical science has come a long way since then and no credible medical source suggests that unborns are either part of their mothers body, or are not individual human beings at any stage of their development from zygote to mature individual reached sometime in the middle to late 20's.

At present, several men are in prison for killing pregnant women. They were charged and sentenced not only for killing the woman, but for killing the child as well. One can not be sentenced for manslaugher for killing a non person so legal precedent is established for the personhood of the unborn.

[palerider]

Both the analogy and argument are inapposite. The quoted argument was not the rule of the court. Roe v. Wade was a Fourteenth Amendment case involving criminal prosecution for violation of a state abortion law. A legal abortion is not a criminal homicide (viz. "murder"). See, e.g., California Penal Code, Section 187. A woman’s right to have an abortion is subject to state (not federal) law; and so long as the state does not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, laws regulating abortion are valid and enforceable.

The 14th amendment does not only apply to citizens. Here again, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what is being said in the constitution. Whether it is deliberate or simply a failure to understand, I won't hazzard a guess.

First, lets take a look at the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first, and most obvious thing to notice is that there is a sentence followed by a sentence that is composed of two clauses separated by a semicolon. It isn't just enough to read the words, you must look at and understand the punctuation used in order to understand what is being said. Some knowledge of the historical context in which the words are written is usefull as well.

Prior to the writing of the 14th amendment, Richard, individual states were in charge of citizenship. A person was first a citizen of the state he or she lived in, and secondary to that was a citizen of the US. The first sentence of the 14th amendment establishes that persons born or naturalized here were FIRST citizens of the US, and secondary to that were citizens of the state that they lived in.

Next we are presented with a sentence that is composed of two clauses separated by a semicolon.

The first clause of the second sentence establishes that since persons who are born or naturalized here are first and foremost citizens of the US that they are entitled to the rights specified in the constitution and the bill of rights. At the time, there were many problems with states deciding that they didn't necessarily have to grant constitutional rights to their citizens.

The second clause is separated from the first by a semicolon. Let me make you completely aware of the purpose of a semicolon in a sentence.

Semicolon - the punctuation mark used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list.

If you read the second clause as if it were no more than a continuation of the first in light of the fact that it is separated by a semicolon, you are reading like a school child and are missing the meaning and intent of the statement.

The second clause of the second sentence establishes that there are certain rights that all persons have whether they are citizens born or naturalized have. Refer to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), ick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, Law Ow Bew v. U.S. (1892) 144 U.S. 47, Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893) 149 U.S. 698, Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895) 158 U.S. 538, and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) 163 U.S. 228. These cases established that persons, whether citizens or aliens, "are entitled to the protections of the second clause of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."

In the Roe decision, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that if the personhood of unborns is established, that roe will collapse because the unborn would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

Now feel free to refer to any legal dictionary for the definition of "person". You will find that in order to be considered a person in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being.

In order for any person to be denied the right to live, law must be legislated that describes which right is being denied, which person is having that right denied, why that person is having the right denied. To date, I have seen no legislation that specifically denies the right of unborn human beings to live. Have you?

There exists, this very day, case law that establishes the personhood of unborns because men are in jail today having been sentenced for the killing of unborns. Such could not be the case if unborns were not persons.

[arbitor]

you are so right on. ive been waiting for someone to mention the fact that its homicide if anyone besides the mother kills the baby. i always thought that was messed up. some prochoice moron on another site said "well obviously its murder becuase she accualy planned on having it" im sure i dont even need to point out the MASSIVE logical flaws in that statement.

[The Scotsman]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else. It is her body.

Agreed. I can imagine a lot of this debate is born off religious conviction to which I have none so for me it comes down to the choice of that person carrying the baby. I'm sure a pregnant woman will not take a decision to abort a baby lightly? Not exactly a light moment in life determining whether you your child or not! More often than not the woman does not want the kid to start with and I shudder to think of the state of mind of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rapist - jeeeeez that must be frightening. Thus I go with the right of the woman to abort every time.

The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.

Nah... don't like that argument as a few cells doing whats' programmed is just like a computer programme running routines. Microsoft Windows is not alive although it does do some pretty weird things likewise a ball of cells dividing and multipying does'nt do it for me.


If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

Yup agree with that scenario.

Religion has been the cause of more grief and suffering down the ages than plague rats thus what rights have religious leaders or religious communities to start dictating the running of other peoples life. I can't imagine wanting to go through with a birth of an unwanted kid just to please some self-righteous group of religious zealots. Which religion is it that bans its members from blood transfusions?....can't remember anyway this bunch of doolally ejits would rather see the death of one of its flock than save their life - do you agree with that on the grounds of gods will?

[palerider]

Agreed. I can imagine a lot of this debate is born off religious conviction to which I have none so for me it comes down to the choice of that person carrying the baby. I'm sure a pregnant woman will not take a decision to abort a baby lightly? Not exactly a light moment in life determining whether you your child or not! More often than not the woman does not want the kid to start with and I shudder to think of the state of mind of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rapist - jeeeeez that must be frightening. Thus I go with the right of the woman to abort every time.

Care to bring some "religious" argument forward? That is a tidy dodge that a lot on the pro choice side use. You claim that the pro life argument is religious in nature but oddly enough, find it very difficult, if not impossible to bring religious arguments from pro lifers up as evidence.

Considering that 45 million have been killed since roe, to assume that women don't take abortion lightly would be a mistake. Most abortions are nothing more than a means of birth control.

Nah... don't like that argument as a few cells doing whats' programmed is just like a computer programme running routines. Microsoft Windows is not alive although it does do some pretty weird things likewise a ball of cells dividing and multipying does'nt do it for me.

You are nothing more than a few more cells doing what they are programmed to do. You do not make a conscious effort to live. You don't make a conscious effort to exchange oxygen for CO2 in your lungs, you don't make a conscious effort to absorb nutrients in your gut, you make no conscious effort to live at all.

That you can't wrap your mind around the idea that an immature human being is just as human as you doesn't change the fact in the slightest that they are.

Religion has been the cause of more grief and suffering down the ages than plague rats thus what rights have religious leaders or religious communities to start dictating the running of other peoples life. I can't imagine wanting to go through with a birth of an unwanted kid just to please some self-righteous group of religious zealots. Which religion is it that bans its members from blood transfusions?....can't remember anyway this bunch of doolally ejits would rather see the death of one of its flock than save their life - do you agree with that on the grounds of gods will?

Once again, if you believe my argument is religious in nature, bring it here as evidence. Otherwise defend your position rather than casting false aspersions on mine.

As to religion causing suffering, consider that 45 million human beings have been denied their most basic human right in this country alone since 1972. When you can point to any religion being responsible for a human rights disaster of that magnitude in that amount of time in this country, then you will be justified in pointing at religion.

[The Scotsman]

Care to bring some "religious" argument forward?
Just making the point here I said that I can IMAGINE a lot of the debate is born from religious conviction – true/false? What’s the basis of your argument? I’ve laid my cards on the table!

As I said, how can I bring a religious slant to the argument when I know balls all about religion? I can’t even give you the ten Commandments!! You can call it a dodge or cop-out if you like but I can’t trade religious quotes at you nor can I argue from a religious perspective because I haven’t got one. I could make up some quotes up though “…..and God said let there be abortion!! And there was coz he wasn’t on earth and the pregnant lady that didn’t want her baby was!!!....” makes a mockery of a serious subject though doesn’t it!

Consider this, however, because I don’t’ subscribe to any organised religion does that negate my opinion “No religion no comment!” is that what you mean? Anyway moving on.....


....Most abortions are nothing more than a means of birth control. Good point well presented. I don't know the figures if you say 45 million then that's right. Again my feeling is that its not my choice or position to pass judgement on a woman that gets herself into that position! Women get pregnant all the time and in most cases those kids are wanted. Having a mother forced to go through with a pregnancy just for the sake of someone elses ideals, however, is not something I consider right and proper. Generally though I agree with your thrust it is not something that should be taken lightly.



That you can't wrap your mind around the idea that an immature human being is just as human as you doesn't change the fact in the slightest that they are. I think this point has been dealt with in the courts to which I bow to their judgment on. I think they have definitions as to what does and does not constitute a "viable" human.


As to religion causing suffering, consider that 45 million human beings have been denied their most basic human right in this country alone since 1972. When you can point to any religion being responsible for a human rights disaster of that magnitude in that amount of time in this country, then you will be justified in pointing at religion. I assume that's rhetorical?

[palerider]

Just making the point here I said that I can IMAGINE a lot of the debate is born from religious conviction – true/false? What’s the basis of your argument? I’ve laid my cards on the table!

Mine is based sqarely in sceince and the law and any review of my previous posts will make it obvious.

makes a mockery of a serious subject though doesn’t it!

Claiming that the opposition is making a religious argument when it is not makes even more of a mockery of the subject. If you are unable to argue your opponent's position based on what it actually is without suggesting that it is religious in nature when clearly it isn't, why even bother?


Good point well presented. I don't know the figures if you say 45 million then that's right. Again my feeling is that its not my choice or position to pass judgement on a woman that gets herself into that position!

Would you feel that it was your position to pass judgement on a woman who killed her 3 year old, her two year old and her newborn infant because she decided that raising kids just wasn't for her?

I think this point has been dealt with in the courts to which I bow to their judgment on. I think they have definitions as to what does and does not constitute a "viable" human.

The courts are not qualified to determine what is and isn't a living human being, or what is and isn't a living member of any species. When a new species is discovered in the rain forest, do you believe that they bring it to the courts to determine what it is? Determining what is and isn't alive, and what it is is a matter of science, not law. And viability is not what makes you a human being. If that were true, anyone needing life support to sustain their lives could simply be killed because they would be no longer human beings.

[The Scotsman]

Claiming that the opposition is making a religious argument when it is not makes even more of a mockery of the subject. If you are unable to argue your opponent's position based on what it actually is without suggesting that it is religious in nature when clearly it isn't, why even bother?


:confused: Dude you seem to be getting really peeved about something that wasn't addressed to you in the first place!! Read the original post from Nammy....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nammy
If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

I was agreeing with Nammy! You can play lawyer and scientist with the others personally I'm a passion and prejudice kinnda guy which is the spirit on Nammy's post IMHO and still agree with the womans right to choose.

Oh yeah....
The courts are not qualified to determine what is and isn't a living human being,.... I thought they did? Wasn't there some sort of legal definition so that all those stem cell research guys and geneticists were reined in? Anyway if not then my mistake NBD I'll leave you to the lawyerly stuff ;)

Now feel free to refer to any legal dictionary for the definition of "person". You will find that in order to be considered a person in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being. so I guess they did :confused: please advise.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

Bravo, Nospam4me.
Just plain bravo!

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, I have to admit it, Pale has convinced me. Just like the good Rev. Phelps has convinced a lot of people with his own personal brand of extremism, so too has Pale convinced me. I never was a big-time supporter of abortion, but now I am.

Without strenuous opposition I think that our lives will come to be run by the kind of people that I think Pale speaks for: misogynist, religious, gay-baiting, folks who would make our country into a theocratic police-state if they had the opportunity. Anyone who feels I am overstating the case should read Pale's arguments for police-state powers on the Authoritarian=Liberals thread.

All life comes from a single source, to pick one kind of life and make it sacred at the expense of all other lives is hardly rational. The whole debate is predicated on the very judgment that Christians are forbidden to make. Babies are innocent and therefore deserve special consideration, people dying in our insane wars, starving, or shivering under bridges are not innocent so they don't deserve special consideration. It looks like bald-faced hypocrisy to me.

[arbitor]

oh yes. just becuase we didnt address EVERY SINGLE other issue (in a debate comepletely unrealated i might add) that means we dont care and are hypocrites. wait a sec. my bs meater is is going off the charts. mabey you should read what the debates TITLE is. is it "poverty? should government do more?" or " should we still be in iraq?" nope, last i checked it was "ABORTION: RIGHT OR WRONG"

[Mare Tranquillity]

oh yes. just becuase we didnt address EVERY SINGLE other issue (in a debate comepletely unrealated i might add) that means we dont care and are hypocrites. wait a sec. my bs meater is is going off the charts. mabey you should read what the debates TITLE is. is it "poverty? should government do more?" or " should we still be in iraq?" nope, last i checked it was "ABORTION: RIGHT OR WRONG"

What are you chuntering on about? This is a thread about abortion not about you bs'ing you meat.

The abortion issue is about power, who has the power to control your body, who has the power of life and death. It seems that you have an amazing paucity of things to contribute, a dearth one might say.

If you will quote the post to which you are responding then it might help us understand what you are talking about.

[The Scotsman]

The abortion issue is about power, who has the power to control your body, who has the power of life and death.

BINGO

[palerider]

BINGO

Well, it is about the power to deny a whole class of human beings the most basic human right. Some 45 million since 1972 in this country alone. It is about giving one human being the power to unilatarally decide to kill another human being for any or no reason with no legal consequence.

[The Scotsman]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold ;) Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body?

Just an aside though and not much at all to do with the debate, you mentioned in earlier posts the law and gave quotes and your oppinions from, inter alia, Roe. In the Roe judgement I found it really fascinating that their Honours in considering their various oppinions looked at so many diverse sources for guidance such as Ancient Greek philosophers, Roman philosophers and Roman Law even Victorian tradition as well as the religious implications from cannon law, English Law, Roman Catholicism and and and .... the point being that I found it enlightening that they viewed the topic without reference to "modern" fads and social/political/religious fashions of the day. Fashions change over time for example in Roman Times the patriarch had absolute authority he could kill a child or keep a child and brook no argument.

got to go now wife wants to go shopping............:eek::eek:

[NO Obamanation]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold ;) Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body? :


You could leave the snot in your nose for a month and it would never develope a heart beat. The human child does in I believe 22 days. The snot in your nose will also always have your own DNA not someone elses DNA.

To compare a human being, a child to the snot in your nose is.......

Well I guess it just takes all kinds.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, it is about the power to deny a whole class of human beings the most basic human right. Some 45 million since 1972 in this country alone. It is about giving one human being the power to unilatarally decide to kill another human being for any or no reason with no legal consequence.

To kill or not, and therein lies the issue of power. Women want that power and you want to take it from them. This is a power struggle in which both sides feel that they have the right to control others.

[The Scotsman]

To compare a human being, a child to the snot in your nose is.......

Well I guess it just takes all kinds.

http://members.shaw.ca/the.toner/images/smilie/rofl-k2.gif chill a wee bit dude

[palerider]

Hi mate - You seem fixated upon these 45 million wee bundles of cells which in some cases probably have less cells than something green that is ejected from my nose when I have a heavy cold ;) Look I guess the basic question is what gives one the right to tell someone else what to do with their body?

A human being is a human being. If you can demonstrate in any real way that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything besides a human being, then call them what you will, but calling a black person a coon or ni%%er does not make them into something other than a human being and calling an unborn child a "wee bundle of cells" doesn't change what they are either.

The real question is what gives one human being the right to kill another human being for any or no reason without legal consequence?

Just an aside though and not much at all to do with the debate, you mentioned in earlier posts the law and gave quotes and your oppinions from, inter alia, Roe. In the Roe judgement I found it really fascinating that their Honours in considering their various oppinions looked at so many diverse sources for guidance such as Ancient Greek philosophers, Roman philosophers and Roman Law even Victorian tradition as well as the religious implications from cannon law, English Law, Roman Catholicism and and and .... the point being that I found it enlightening that they viewed the topic without reference to "modern" fads and social/political/religious fashions of the day. Fashions change over time for example in Roman Times the patriarch had absolute authority he could kill a child or keep a child and brook no argument.

Of course they looked in all manner of places for a justification to make abortion legal. They had to since there is no such provision in the US Consitution where they are sworn to look. They had an agenda that they intended to push before the first word of testimony was ever heard and they went to any source available at which they believed that they could get a plausible justification.

[palerider]

To kill or not, and therein lies the issue of power. Women want that power and you want to take it from them. This is a power struggle in which both sides feel that they have the right to control others.

Finish the sentence. Women want the power to kill their unborn children without legal consequence for any or no reason. No one else can claim the right to kill another human being for any or no reason. You seem to be all about special rights and will twist logic into a literal pretzel in order to justify your wants.

[palerider]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

A woman gets off a bus and enters a clinic. She is there for some time, she exits, gets a cab and leaves. Now I ask, what just happened? And is it any body's business?

The next person who enters the clinic finds the receptionist dead at her desk and the staff of 11 dead throughout the building. In a room near the back, there are 12 dead unborns at various stages of development.

The staff has been killing all morning and the woman came in and killed some more? Is any of thie killing anyone's business? The answer is yes. All killing is everyone's business. The woman who killed the staff rightly deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law for killing for reasons other than self defense and the staff also deserve to be punished to the full extent of the law for reasons other than self defense.

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Yep, whatever happened to it. The child is an individual and is exactly as human as its mother. What has happened to individual soveriegnty when mom can simply kill the child for any or no reason without legal consequence?

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

Do you object to laws that make rape, assault, and other sorts of killing illegal because they enforce someone's "moral" standard or are you just fine with laws that protect you and "just happen" to enforce someone else's moral standard?

[The Scotsman]

A human being is a human being. .... not the point in my oppinion. Okay in for penny in for a pound as they say - Look to me a bundle of cells tucked snuggly into some lasses inner bits aren't a "person" agreed they're human cells but not a "person". Point here I guess is your and my perspectives are obviously different.


The real question is what gives one human being the right to kill another human being for any or no reason without legal consequence? ....simple...the law! Because abortions are legal!



Of course they looked in all manner of places for a justification to make abortion legal. They had to since there is no such provision in the US Consitution where they are sworn to look. They had an agenda that they intended to push before the first word of testimony was ever heard and they went to any source available at which they believed that they could get a plausible justification. :D...Ah c'mon that's not the way your Justice system works and you know it! If you were talking of some hick court in Cowpat, Iowa maybe but not from the Supremes!

[arbitor]

what are you talking about? its legal therefore its ok?! slavery was legal too once you know. did that make it any less evil?

[The Scotsman]

what are you talking about? its legal therefore its ok?! slavery was legal too once you know. did that make it any less evil? .....tell you what then if in two hundred years time abortion is illegal I'll come back here and you can be all smug and I'll moan and groan coz its not fair - okay for you? http://members.shaw.ca/the.toner/images/smilie/pathead2.gif

[Mare Tranquillity]

Finish the sentence. Women want the power to kill their unborn children without legal consequence for any or no reason. No one else can claim the right to kill another human being for any or no reason. You seem to be all about special rights and will twist logic into a literal pretzel(you missed a heck of a good chance here, Pale, when you didn't use the term "liberal pretzel") in order to justify your wants.

And you seem to be on a police-state power trip like Ceaucesceu who mandated a death sentence for any woman who got an abortion. Worked good too, as I recall.

Like I said, Pale, you convinced me, it's the woman's baby, a parasite inside her body and she should have the right to kill it if she wishes. She also has the right to stand before God on judgment day and explain her decision. In my opinion YOU don't have the right to tell her NO. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay. It ain't your job to be the world's policeman, put your ego back in its cup and pay attention to the beam in your own eye.

[palerider]

.... not the point in my oppinion. Okay in for penny in for a pound as they say - Look to me a bundle of cells tucked snuggly into some lasses inner bits aren't a "person" agreed they're human cells but not a "person". Point here I guess is your and my perspectives are obviously different.

Aren't a person? What is a person? What do you think makes a person?

The business of being a person, like being a human being, is a matter of kind, and not degree. Person is a word that we use to describe a human being but unlike infant, zygote, toddler, fetus, teenager, embryo, and old geezer, it covers the span of a human being's life rather than a specific period. A person is the kind of creature that you are, not something that you can become.

Allow me to explain. If being a person, or a human being were a matter of the degree to which you have manifested your potential, then those who manifest more potential would be more human or more person than those who manifest less potential. No one denies that an infant is both a human being and a person even though they are far from mature and whether they grow up to be a nuclear engineer with an IQ of 175 or a Down's victim with an IQ of 35, the two are equally human and equally persons. There is nothing that you can do to make yourself more human or more of a person because that is simply what you are. By the same token, you can't be un humaned or un personed no matter what may befall you that results in a lesser manifiestation of your potential.

If you are unable to adequately defend your "perspective" of what value is it exactly?

....simple...the law! Because abortions are legal!

In this country there is no law making abortion legal. There is a court decision which is probably why the issue is so devisive. In europe, the duely elected legislators wrote law that made abortion legal thus effectively giving the people their say. No such thing happened here. Nine unelected, unaccountable robed justices made the decision for us.

:D...Ah c'mon that's not the way your Justice system works and you know it! If you were talking of some hick court in Cowpat, Iowa maybe but not from the Supremes!

Then you are not very familiar with our legal system. The majority of the unconstitutional, imposed liberalism that we live with in this country is forced upon us by the courts because little, if any of it would make it through the congress and the senate. The supreme court, in the past, has been as guilty of judicial activism as any hick court in Cowpat, Iowa.

[palerider]

Like I said, Pale, you convinced me, it's the woman's baby, a parasite inside her body and she should have the right to kill it if she wishes.

In typical fashion, you couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps in other countries a woman may own her child because in other countries the law doesn't prohibit the ownership of one human being by another. Alas, in this country, you can not own another human being. And if you knew anything at all, you wouldn't even try to compare an unborn with a parasite. In this, as with everything, you base your position on ignorance, misunderstanding, and deliberate misrepresentation.


She also has the right to stand before God on judgment day and explain her decision. In my opinion YOU don't have the right to tell her NO.

Following that deficient logic, all murderers, thieves, and rapists have the right to stand before God on judgement day and explain thier decisions and none of us have the right to tell them NO while they are here. Of course, in your hypocritical way, you don't feel that way and are perfectly fine with telling people who might hurt you NO. Isn't that right. In fact, you are perfectly fine with asking for special rights that none of the rest of us have based on something so trivial as sexual preference.

Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, I will repay. It ain't your job to be the world's policeman, put your ego back in its cup and pay attention to the beam in your own eye.

If you want to play Bible verses, you are going to come out on the short end of the stick. You might start with Romans 13 where you are instructed to submit yourself to the governing authorities. So when Roe is overturned as some 200 other cases have been overturned, if you are really a bible thumper, you won't have any problem submitting will you?

[palerider]

.....tell you what then if in two hundred years time abortion is illegal I'll come back here and you can be all smug and I'll moan and groan coz its not fair - okay for you? http://members.shaw.ca/the.toner/images/smilie/pathead2.gif

200 years? You haven't been paying attention have you? Not very long ago, the court upheld a ban on late term abortion and openly invited states to further restrict abortion. There are a number of cases winding their way through the lower courts at this time that are expected to be upheld by the new conservative majority in the court.

Not to mention the growing body of legal precedent for the legal personhood of the unborn.

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nine unelected, unaccountable robed justices made the decision for us.

Pretty annoying isn't it? Just like when a similar group of unaccountable robed justices made that monkey our President.

[Mare Tranquillity]

In typical fashion, you couldn't be more wrong. Perhaps in other countries a woman may own her child because in other countries the law doesn't prohibit the ownership of one human being by another. Alas, in this country, you can not own another human being. And if you knew anything at all, you wouldn't even try to compare an unborn with a parasite. In this, as with everything, you base your position on ignorance, misunderstanding, and deliberate misrepresentation.

Following that deficient logic, all murderers, thieves, and rapists have the right to stand before God on judgement day and explain thier decisions and none of us have the right to tell them NO while they are here. Of course, in your hypocritical way, you don't feel that way and are perfectly fine with telling people who might hurt you NO. Isn't that right. In fact, you are perfectly fine with asking for special rights that none of the rest of us have based on something so trivial as sexual preference.

If you want to play Bible verses, you are going to come out on the short end of the stick. You might start with Romans 13 where you are instructed to submit yourself to the governing authorities. So when Roe is overturned as some 200 other cases have been overturned, if you are really a bible thumper, you won't have any problem submitting will you?

You keep trying to make this a contest--your Scriptures are better than mine--when in fact this is NOT a contest. The Bible is such a confused mass/mess of conflicting rules, laws, suggestions, and prohibitions that no one has been able to say for certainty what it actually says/means for two thousand years, that's why the Christian religion has been splitting into new sects at the rate of almost 2 per year since Christianity was invented.

It's irrelevant that our laws prohibit a person from owning another person since the Bible ALLOWS ownership of persons and even allows the passing of that ownership to one's progeny. It also allows the killing of slaves with no punishment under certain circumstances, and it allows the selling of children.

I know you don't like the "parasite" comparison, but it's technically true if you go and look up the word. It is even more true if the woman involved doesn't want that "thing" growing in her body. I didn't say I agreed with this outlook, I just said it's technically true and I disagree with your incessant attempt to gain power over others and force them to bend to your religious tenets.

Poor Pale, almost every post you call me ignorant or stupid or ill-informed, but yet you continue to try to convince me that your police-state theocracy is a good idea and all you do is prove over and over again that any government that you design would be a kakistocracy (government by the people least suited to govern) since you are on a religious power trip which you vainly try to hide behind a fog of other arguments.

Oh yeah, I like the "all murderers, theives, and rapists..." argument. When the thief or murderer or rapist is INSIDE your body, living in your most intimate parts, leaching off your blood supply, and putting your very life at risk, THEN your argument will carry some weight with me. Until then it's just another specious example like your insistence that homosexual people should not have equality. Loving relationships between consenting adults should be legal, anything else is religious bigotry since there is no rational reason for not recognizing them--as has been amply demonstrated by the countries that do recognize them.

I find you an interesting study, my Pale friend (using the term "friend" somewhat loosely), in that your monomania about other people's sex lives is more intense than any other Christian I have personally spoken to or corresponded with in my life. I have met others with the same drive for power and control that you exhibit, but never one so tightly focused on regulating what others do with their sexual organs.

[Mare Tranquillity]

200 years? You haven't been paying attention have you? Not very long ago, the court upheld a ban on late term abortion and openly invited states to further restrict abortion. There are a number of cases winding their way through the lower courts at this time that are expected to be upheld by the new conservative majority in the court.

Not to mention the growing body of legal precedent for the legal personhood of the unborn.

It is unfortunately true that the Bible-beaters will probably get safe, legal, abortions outlawed and thus they will have their revenge--mostly on poor women--who will die from back-alley abortions. According to my brother this is nothing more than what they deserve, God's justice meted out by the hand of the Pale's of the religious world, doing God's Work.

The upside is that RU-486 and other things like it are becoming more and more commonly available and at some point--thanks to the internet--we won't all be required to run the religious gauntlet of Pale-look-a-likes in order to live our lives. I think the moring after pills will put the Pales out of business--except of course for their incessant attempts to get the manufacture of those drugs banned. Just think, RU-486 could be the new marijuana.

[The Scotsman]

Aren't a person? What is a person? What do you think makes a person?

What a great and truly complex question - trouble is that for the purposes of this debate and my position it has a simple answer, a person is one that lives when extracted from its mother; if it lives its a person, if it doesn't it ain't. Doctors and medical science can keep alive such tiny wee mites nowadays its amazing, unfortunately there comes a point where its just not possible and I guess for me that's where one draws a line. Okay I can hear the philosophical and religious arguments about personhood yadda yadda yadda but in the context of my belief in the rights of women its not relevant to me - don't get me wrong I know it is to you though and respect that difference :)



Then you are not very familiar with our legal system. mea maxima culpa :o Can't keep up with every development on the planet :D


abortions outlawed and thus they will have their revenge--mostly on poor women--who will die from back-alley abortions. ......who in some cases are the lucky ones. Agreed MT the whole topic of back street abortions is quite horrific.

[palerider]

Pretty annoying isn't it? Just like when a similar group of unaccountable robed justices made that monkey our President.

And once more you prove beyond any doubt that you don't have a clue. Do you even know what the supreme court said in the case of bush v gore? They said that the florida supreme court could not change the rules of an election in the middle of the game.

[arbitor]

1)you understand NOTHING about the bible mare. so quit talking like you do.
2) we arent controlling their organs. we didnt make them get themselves knocked up. not letting them kill the child is not the same as makeing them have kids.
3) if we shouldnt have laws on based on religion than why do we have laws at all. morals can all be traced to religion.
3) once again you selfishly think of ONLY the womans rights and not the helpless childs. you hide behind your PATHETIC exuses. how sad.

[Mare Tranquillity]

1)you understand NOTHING about the bible mare. so quit talking like you do.
2) we arent controlling their organs. we didnt make them get themselves knocked up. not letting them kill the child is not the same as makeing them have kids.
3) if we shouldnt have laws on based on religion than why do we have laws at all. morals can all be traced to religion.
3) once again you selfishly think of ONLY the womans rights and not the helpless childs. you hide behind your PATHETIC exuses. how sad.

The beauty of America is that you're entitled to your opinions--no matter how pathetic. Number 3 is patently false, many atheists and agnostics are very good moral people. It's hard for some people to believe but some of us do what we think is right because we think it's right, not because somebody wrote it in an old book somewhere.

I do think of the helpless child's rights, the right to be born into a family that wants them for instance. I've seen too many abused babies, burned with cigarette butts and the like to think that forcing a baby into an unhappy household does the baby any favor. There are worse things than dying.

[The Scotsman]

3) if we shouldnt have laws [on] based on religion [than] then why do we have laws at all. morals can all be traced to religion.



Hi Arbitor - many cultures and religions uphold different forms of "morals" or beliefs or whatever you want to call them all purporting to be done in the name of God. Here are but a few examples that you may find repugnent?

A 14-year-old Seattle boy refused to have blood transfusion because of religious believes. He died of leukemia several hours after the court affirmed his right not to have the treatment. Dennis Lindberg, of Mount Vernon, who was diagnosed with leukemia died at Children's Hospital & Regional Medical Center in Seattle. He was Jehovah's Witness, who believe that blood is sacred and blood transfusion goes against their believes, thus rejecting the necessary treatment.

Superior Court Judge John Meyer supported the boy's decision saying that Lindberg was old enough to give him the right to refuse the transfusion.

Female circumcision, officially known as female genital mutilation, is one of the most political areas of women's health. Worldwide it is estimated that well over 100 million women have been subjected to it. Supporters of the practice say it is done for cultural and religious reasons, but opponents say that not only is it potentially life-threatening - it is also an extreme form of oppression of women.

One could go on and on! Are these practises that you would like to see brought into US legislation?

[arbitor]

1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?
2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**.
3) moral atheisim is hypocracy. if there is no god and no soul than life has no real value than there are no morals. so why do we have morals? morals come from religion. thats where these atheists REALLY get their morals from.

[Mare Tranquillity]

1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?
If you stop competing you could understand better. Scots wasn't trying to "prove" anything, he was giving you examples of how the religion that you say is the wellspring of all morality differs a great deal from one culture to another. If all morality comes to us from a single God by way of religion, then we should all espouse the same moral standards--yet we don't. The examples he gave were to make that point, different religious traditions have different moral standards--who's right? How can you prove that it's you?

2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**.
Female circumcision is not getting the fallopian tubes tied, that is a method of preventing the eggs from traveling down into the uterus and thus preventing pregnancy.

Female genital mutilation is a surgical process which damages the clitoris and prevents sexual pleasure (it's way more complicated than that, but it's such a nasty, cruel, stupid thing to do that if you want the bloody details--like no anethesia for the operation--then you can research it on the net yourself. The vagina is also often sewed up leaving only a tiny opening the diameter of a wooden matchstick for menstrual blood flow and because when the husband next penetrates his wife it will be much like copulating with a virgin whose hymen is intact--very painful and potentially bloody for the woman. This process is another one of the things that has been supposedly commanded by God. Again, Arbit, Scots was making the point that religious morality covers a very wide range of activities.

3) moral atheisim is hypocracy. if there is no god and no soul than life has no real value than there are no morals. so why do we have morals? morals come from religion. thats where these atheists REALLY get their morals from.
Even a casual reading of history will show that many people have lead exemplary lives without resorting to religion. The fact that you cannot imagine this would seem to indicate that you are one of the many people--like my brothers admit they are--who has no internal compass that directs their actions. Some people have it, some don't. Please don't get offended here, it's not like this is something derogatory, it's simply a difference between people--in much the same way that some people are loners and some people like groups. It's just another way of being in the world.

[The Scotsman]

Just seen your post MT - you beat me to it :D this is what i was going to say much along the same lines as you....


1) im not a jahovahs witness so dont try to change the subject. he refused the blood and died. seiriously, what in the world are you trying to prove with that statement?.

Don't Jehovah's witnesses believe in God!!?? they have a moral objection to blood transfusions do you? Should blood transfusions be banned in America?

:confused: Sorry Arbitor I mentioned right from the very begining that I was not very religious so can you remind me which God our morals come from just so that I don't get it wrong. You see I get so confused these days - hey here's something that should please you! The Archbishop of Canterbury was giving a lecture not so long ago suggesting it may be time to consider bringing elements of Sharia Law into our legal system so perhaps one day we could be stoning women who have had abortions!!

That's the point of my last post Arbitor - on the one hand God believes in the sanctity of life and cannot countenance abortion and on the other God believes its' better to let someone die instead of having a blood transfusion! A moral dichotomy perhaps...........

But you're right we're getting off topic!

2)NOWHERE did we say we wanted all girls to get their tubes tied. once again you make up stuff to cover your a**. errrrmmmm.........you've kindda lost me there mate!

[palerider]

I was just banned for life from the Political Hotwire discussion site because I trespassed on the religious beliefs of one of the moderators. He banned me with no explanation except the word "racist", which if anyone has read my posts is obviously a mere excuse. I did nothing to this man's religious beliefs except question the basis on which they were built and point out the glaring inconsistencies. I guess it was too much for him--it must be terrible to live one's life with so much fear.


It doesn't surprise me at all that you would get banned over attacking someone over thier beliefs. You attacked me seemingly without end over my "catholic" beliefs when I am not, and never have been a catholic. You may as well have been a card carrying member of the KKK and I black for the way you attacked me over religion when as far as I can tell, I never made a religious argument to provoke such an attack.

[Mare Tranquillity]

It doesn't surprise me at all that you would get banned over attacking someone over thier beliefs. You attacked me seemingly without end over my "catholic" beliefs when I am not, and never have been a catholic. You may as well have been a card carrying member of the KKK and I black for the way you attacked me over religion when as far as I can tell, I never made a religious argument to provoke such an attack.

I believe that this is the first time I have ever heard you whine and snivel--it's not pretty, Pale. Look up the word "catholic", the way I used it was correct. You have and still do advocate many of the same things and attitudes as the more rabid Catholics I know--you don't like that? Not my problem, I don't write your posts. Many religious people work very hard at not overtly using their religious beliefs to support their arguments because they know deep-down that religious arguments cannot be defended. So the fact that you do not use them is hardly convincing proof that you are not a sneaky Bible-beater trying to go stealth. Part of what does not convince me is that you do not often present cogent or valid arguments for your positions. A perfect example of this is your attitude towards gay people. If one ingnores the "ick" factor and removes religion from the argument, there is no rational reason to deny homosexual people equal rights just like the US Constitution says.

Well, I may be many things, but I'm not racist. The mod who booted me was follower of Joe Smith and I guess he didn't like my examination of his religion. Tut, tut, insecurity must be a terrible thing.

[Jarlaxle]

Somebody has to ask: who the heck is Joe Smith?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Somebody has to ask: who the heck is Joe Smith?
Joseph Smith, the man to whom the angel Moroni gave the golden plates that Joe then translated into the book of Mormon. Staring down into his hat he dictated the words to others. He also rewrote a portion of the Bible to suit himself. The other followers of Jesus set upon him and his people and drove them out to Utah.

[Jarlaxle]

Oh, that Smith. I tried a search, but...well, the guy's name is "Smith", so it wasn't sucessful. :)

[Mare Tranquillity]

Oh, that Smith. I tried a search, but...well, the guy's name is "Smith", so it wasn't sucessful. :)

Phone up your local Mormon church and they will have two young men in suits ride bicycles over to your house and tell you more about Joe than you ever wanted to know--and then some.:)

[arbitor]

I believe that this is the first time I have ever heard you whine and snivel--it's not pretty, Pale. Look up the word "catholic", the way I used it was correct. You have and still do advocate many of the same things and attitudes as the more rabid Catholics I know--you don't like that? Not my problem, I don't write your posts. Many religious people work very hard at not overtly using their religious beliefs to support their arguments because they know deep-down that religious arguments cannot be defended. So the fact that you do not use them is hardly convincing proof that you are not a sneaky Bible-beater trying to go stealth. Part of what does not convince me is that you do not often present cogent or valid arguments for your positions. A perfect example of this is your attitude towards gay people. If one ingnores the "ick" factor and removes religion from the argument, there is no rational reason to deny homosexual people equal rights just like the US Constitution says.

Well, I may be many things, but I'm not racist. The mod who booted me was follower of Joe Smith and I guess he didn't like my examination of his religion. Tut, tut, insecurity must be a terrible thing.


i may not have been at your other site but im sure you deserved to get banned. you attack people just becuase of the fact they have a religion. i can tell by your attitude that you think any religious individual is incappable of reasoning becuase they are biased and brainwashed. you seem to have a vendetta against religion itself. you can accuse me of making an irrational assumption but is it any more irrational than you claims of pale being catholic? not all conservetives are "bible beaters" and catholics. you are just too blind to see past the absurd sterotype of christians that has been created in the last few decades that is simply not true. one last thing. you say we cant defend our religiuos beleifs but you know what? its not like you can defend your atheist ones. we dont have footage of the big bang. it is a theory that can be easily disproven by bodes law. neither can you prove evolution due to the billions of missing links we havent found.in fact we have no chains with more than 3 links and those links could possibly (and most likeley) be different species all together. there is evidence of creative design all around us. look at how fragile life is. look at the hostile conditions of other planets. how could nature work in such harmony and everything by so precise if it all exploded out of a tiny dot? im sure you would say "its evolution" but did you ever stop to think how your little evutionary genes were written. i geuss they were just there. my last point is that science cannot explain existence. matter is neither created nor destroyed. so how in the world could the universe come about. you say christians cant use their beliefs to prove their oppinion about how the universe was formed but neither can you, in fact, going by your science and its laws the universe shouldnt exist at all.

[Mare Tranquillity]

i may not have been at your other site but im sure you deserved to get banned. you attack people just becuase of the fact they have a religion. i can tell by your attitude that you think any religious individual is incappable of reasoning becuase they are biased and brainwashed. you seem to have a vendetta against religion itself. you can accuse me of making an irrational assumption but is it any more irrational than you claims of pale being catholic? not all conservetives are "bible beaters" and catholics. you are just too blind to see past the absurd sterotype of christians that has been created in the last few decades that is simply not true. one last thing. you say we cant defend our religiuos beleifs but you know what? its not like you can defend your atheist ones.
we dont have footage of the big bang. it is a theory that can be easily disproven by bodes law. neither can you prove evolution due to the billions of missing links we havent found.in fact we have no chains with more than 3 links and those links could possibly (and most likeley) be different species all together. there is evidence of creative design all around us. look at how fragile life is. look at the hostile conditions of other planets. how could nature work in such harmony and everything by so precise if it all exploded out of a tiny dot? im sure you would say "its evolution" but did you ever stop to think how your little evutionary genes were written. i geuss they were just there. my last point is that science cannot explain existence. matter is neither created nor destroyed. so how in the world could the universe come about. you say christians cant use their beliefs to prove their oppinion about how the universe was formed but neither can you, in fact, going by your science and its laws the universe shouldnt exist at all.

The mod banned me for "racism" because that's the only thing for which one can be instantly banned for life. He recanted, reinstated me, and admitted being wrong. Try something else to attack me personally since you can't seem to come up with anything substantive to say otherwise.

I don't attack people because they have religion, you can believe anything you want to, no matter how weird and it's okay with me. It's when you try to use the law to make others behave according to YOUR beliefs that you and I butt heads. Stop passing laws against gay people until you have some reason besides religious dogma.

Pale preaches Catholic dogma, what else can I say, he's got it down chapter and verse. Like I said, I don't write his posts, if he doesn't like what he says then why does he write it?

Well, first off I'm not an atheist, and the stereotype of Christians isn't what I'm talking about. I want the killing and persecution of gay and trans-people to end, I've seen far too many of us beaten and killed, too many had their lives torn apart by discriminatory laws based on nothing but religious dogma. If you live your religion and stop trying to force others to obey it, you and I will have no problem. It's the coercion to which I object.

Well you're covering a lot of ground what with the big bang and evolution, but those are not issues I have expounded upon and as such are not really part of the discussion. Let's stick to the real discussion here, Arby, on another thread you called my posts spam for not addressing just the subject of the OP, but here you have made a long-winded personal attack on me with reference to science and evolution and atheism, but not even once mentioned abortion. You spammer!:)

[arbitor]

where has pale recited catholic dogma? just becuase people in that religion agree with him on certain issues that doe not mean he is affiliated with that religion. i would like to see quotes of him saying he is catholic.

[Mare Tranquillity]

where has pale recited catholic dogma? just becuase people in that religion agree with him on certain issues that doe not mean he is affiliated with that religion. i would like to see quotes of him saying he is catholic.

Because someone denies something does not necessarily mean that their statement is true. He isn't the first Bible-beater to try to deny Jesus so that his arguments will carry more weight with non-believers.

[Dr House]

A clump of cells with no brain is not a human being, it's part of the mother's body. No better than a tumor. Therefore, there is no reason for her not to remove it.

I support early abortions. I do not support late-term abortions, when the fetus is fully formed. By then she might as well have the baby, give it up, and thus preserve a human life.

-Dr House :cool:

[arbitor]

[QUOTE=Dr House;37732]A clump of cells with no brain is not a human being, it's part of the mother's body. No better than a tumor. Therefore, there is no reason for her not to remove it.

yeah... a clump of cells with a pulse and a heartbeat. they have a pulse and a heartbeat within the first few weeks of pregnancy. they almost always have those things by the time the mother realizes she is pregnant.

also, if it isnt alive than why do you have to kill it to keep it from growing?

isnt stoping something before it it is the same as destroying it? picture this: a mechanic is working on a car. its only partly built but there is already money invested in it. someone comes along and blows it to bits. do think they could just say "it wasnt a car. it was only PART of a car, therefore it didnt matter that i destroyed it". now, would the logic that "it isnt comeplete therefore it has no value" apply if the mechanic destroyed it? would it be any less illogical? now im sure you can see the value of this analogy.

[palerider]

A clump of cells with no brain is not a human being, it's part of the mother's body. No better than a tumor. Therefore, there is no reason for her not to remove it.

OK. So you have proved beyond doubt that you dont' have even a rudimentary grasp of developmental biology. What you believe is completely irrelavent. Do feel free to provide some credible science that states that the unborn is part of its mother or that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Stating that it is no better than a tumor is a far cry from actually substantiating the statement. Do feel free to attempt to corroborate it with some credible science.

I support early abortions. I do not support late-term abortions, when the fetus is fully formed. By then she might as well have the baby, give it up, and thus preserve a human life.

Once fertilization is complete, the child is as human as it is ever going to become. Being immature does not preclude one from being a full fledged member of the species. Human is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential.

[peoplespartyguy65]

Wow a lot of feelings abound with this subject. Right or wrong however it should have been a decision for the states and not the Supreme Court. Just one thought on pro choice though. There are other choices that could have been made prior to conception. Abstinence or birth control.

[Libsmasher]

Is a fetus alive? Yes.

Is it a human being, or perhaps another species? It is a human being - homo sapiens.

It is a live human being.

[palerider]

Is a fetus alive? Yes.

Is it a human being, or perhaps another species? It is a human being - homo sapiens.

It is a live human being.

There seem to be a lot of people who can't wrap their minds around the fact that being immature doesn't make you something "else".

[n0spam4me]

I've been away from this thread a while, check message #5 ....
Please note, many Christians will complain about the actions of Doctors who perform abortions, HOWEVER in your own BIBLE there is an admonition to NOT demand compliance to GOD's law by non-believers! Let God sort them out!

"You then complain about gov't intrusion. My guess is that you also support tax spikes, social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc."

Feel free to speculate as to what I really believe, or if I'm a "conservative" or "liberal"
& good luck with that!

[palerider]

I've been away from this thread a while, check message #5 ....
Please note, many Christians will complain about the actions of Doctors who perform abortions, HOWEVER in your own BIBLE there is an admonition to NOT demand compliance to GOD's law by non-believers! Let God sort them out!

"You then complain about gov't intrusion. My guess is that you also support tax spikes, social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc."

Feel free to speculate as to what I really believe, or if I'm a "conservative" or "liberal"
& good luck with that!

As much as you would like for this to be a religious discussion, it is not. It is a matter of the US constitution.

[Dawkinsrocks]

There are lots more hypocrises in the pro-lifers arguments.

Like why their views don't extend to the rights of actual people

[palerider]

There are lots more hypocrises in the pro-lifers arguments.

Like why their views don't extend to the rights of actual people

Even if you could prove hypocricy, (which you can't because you are at a severe intellectual disadvantage here) it would not matter even a whit as it would not change the facts as they apply to abortion. Looking for hypocricy on someone elses part rather than attacking their argument head on is a sign of a very weak argument.

Note that I don't need to look for some hypocricy on your part because I can dismantle your argument with both hands tied behind my back. You, on the other hand, can't even begin to touch my argument so you have to go of into the land of logical fallacy looking for something else because your argument is so inherently weak as to be useless.

And who ever said that their views on human rights don't extend to post natals? That sounds like just one more thing that you have made up in an attempt to score some small point.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Ok you have stated that you won't lose any sleep if an innocent is executed provided they stood trial.

This means that you are not pro-life.

On the subject of abortion you are claiming that you are pro-life.

I think this obvious hypcrisy should be obvious - even to you.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh and BTW if you have to state that you are intellectually superior, you aren't.

[palerider]

Ok you have stated that you won't lose any sleep if an innocent is executed provided they stood trial.

I asked you to bring any such quote from me forward . You can't because I never said any such thing. You have been caught in a lie.

This means that you are not pro-life.

I am anti abortion on demand. You are the one saying that I am pro life.

On the subject of abortion you are claiming that you are pro-life.

I think this obvious hypcrisy should be obvious - even to you.

Since I call myself anti abortion on demand, I don't see any hypocricy at all. Even if I called myself pro life, it wouldn't matter. The facts are what they are with regard to abortion and the facts support my argument, not yours.

[palerider]

Oh and BTW if you have to state that you are intellectually superior, you aren't.

Of course I am. Just look at how badly you are losing.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You have an interesting understanding of losing.

You are now denying saying that you wouldn't lose sleep over an innocent being executed provided they had been through a trial.

Denying what you have written before is kind of embarrassing.

I feel sorry for you

[palerider]

You have an interesting understanding of losing.

You are now denying saying that you wouldn't lose sleep over an innocent being executed provided they had been through a trial.

Denying what you have written before is kind of embarrassing.

I feel sorry for you

I have asked you repeatedly to bring forward any such quote by me. You keep insisting that I said it and yet, you seem unable to bring such a statement by me forward. That woud seem to indicate that no such statement by me exists which would seem to indicate that you have lied.

What is embarassing is to claim that someone said a thing and be unable to produce the quote. Sort of makes a liar out of you doesn't it?

[Libsmasher]

I have asked you repeatedly to bring forward any such quote by me. You keep insisting that I said it and yet, you seem unable to bring such a statement by me forward. That woud seem to indicate that no such statement by me exists which would seem to indicate that you have lied.

What is embarassing is to claim that someone said a thing and be unable to produce the quote. Sort of makes a liar out of you doesn't it?

Pale, why are you even bothering to debate this imbecile?

[palerider]

Imbesiles are sort of people too.

No, really. This isn't so much for him. There are people who sit on the fence on this issue who don't often join in the discussion. When they see the pro choice argument torn into small, easily digestable pieces, a surprising number get off the fence and land on the anti abortion on demand side. Dawkins typifies the young, uneducated pro choicer who is nothing more than a parrot on a stick for the pro choice agenda. His defense of his position reflects what very many uneducated people believe. Expose it to hard fact and it shrivels like a raisin in the sun.

And there is a certain entertainment value for me in watching somene like dawkins attempt to defend an indefensible position. I am always curious (in a trainwreck sort of way) to see just how far they will debase their intellect trying to save face.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Homo sapiens gains certain rights as the individual ages.

For example, it doesn't gain the right to vote until it is 18.

It doesn't gain the right to life until it is at least sensient and aware.

Which is why it is legal to abort foetuses up to a certain age.

[numinus]

Homo sapiens gains certain rights as the individual ages.

For example, it doesn't gain the right to vote until it is 18.

It doesn't gain the right to life until it is at least sensient and aware.

Which is why it is legal to abort foetuses up to a certain age.

What ignorant nonsense.

Your post demonstrate your inability to distinguish between inalienable rights and civil rights.

Inalienable rights are those that accrue to the existence of a human person. Civil rights are those that one gains as a member of the body politic.

The legality of abortion hangs precariously on the question of when exactly a human person starts to exist -- hence this debate. Clearly, neither science nor logic support your argument.

Why you insist on thinking this way is not surprising, really. The idea of rendering human existence for another's profit or pleasure has been with us all of recorded history. Why not for convenience, eh?

[Dawkinsrocks]

But you know you are being disingneuous.

Everybody knows that a few cells with no brain is not a person.

It is accepted practice that life support machines are turned off when there is no brain activity.

This is because scientists agree that a fundamental part of a person is a functioning brain.

Neither you nor anyone else really gives a **** what happens to a few cells with no brain.

Especially when he leaves the whitehouse in a few weeks time

[numinus]

But you know you are being disingneuous.

Everybody knows that a few cells with no brain is not a person.

People are still talking to you in this forum, aren't they?

It is accepted practice that life support machines are turned off when there is no brain activity.

The determination of brain activity is in the province of the physician, no? If that were true, then the physician wouldn't bother with a waiver, now, would he?

This is because scientists agree that a fundamental part of a person is a functioning brain.

You mean the same scientists that say less than 2 % of the human genome is different from that of a bonobo?

And if brain function is the only standard, you would be a borderline case.

Neither you nor anyone else really gives a **** what happens to a few cells with no brain.

Especially when he leaves the whitehouse in a few weeks time

That is correct. I don't give a **** about you.

But that is not relevant to a person's right to live.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are a very angry aren't you.

Sore loser?

[numinus]

You are a very angry aren't you.

Sore loser?

On the contrary, I am the most likeable person in this forum.

Oh, and I seldom loose.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Loose??

What do you mean you seldom loose?

What the **** does that mean?

[numinus]

Loose??

What do you mean you seldom loose?

What the **** does that mean?

I meant lose. It happens, especially when you are working and debating at the same time.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Oh, is this site work for you?

[palerider]

What ignorant nonsense.

Your post demonstrate your inability to distinguish between inalienable rights and civil rights.

Inalienable rights are those that accrue to the existence of a human person. Civil rights are those that one gains as a member of the body politic.

The legality of abortion hangs precariously on the question of when exactly a human person starts to exist -- hence this debate. Clearly, neither science nor logic support your argument.

Why you insist on thinking this way is not surprising, really. The idea of rendering human existence for another's profit or pleasure has been with us all of recorded history. Why not for convenience, eh?

Very well said. You are an exceptionally intelligent individual. How is it that you can be so wrong on capital punishment?:D:D

[Dawkinsrocks]

If a few brainless cells have the right to life then so does every living organism and you have got a lot of campaigning on your hands

[Dawkinsrocks]

Or will we be seeing more 'pro-life' hypocrisy?

[palerider]

If a few brainless cells have the right to life then so does every living organism and you have got a lot of campaigning on your hands

You like to say that but I have provided credible, peer reviewed science that states explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. To date, you have provided nothing but your own uneducated, unsupported, uncorroborated opinion. If that is the best you have, then you haven't got much.

By the way, can you show me in the constitution where any organism other than human beings have any rights at all?

[numinus]

Very well said. You are an exceptionally intelligent individual. How is it that you can be so wrong on capital punishment?:D:D

From a legal positivist's point of view, you have every reason to think so. The letter of the law is what it is.

What I am pointing out is the spirit of the law, owing from its very nature. The contradiction is clear and inescapable.

[numinus]

If a few brainless cells have the right to life then so does every living organism and you have got a lot of campaigning on your hands

No one is arguing for the right to live of all living organisms on the planet -- only human beings.

A HUMAN BEING, IN WHATEVER FORM IT'S EXISTENCE MANIFESTS, HAS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIVE FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH.

Is that painfully hard to understand?

[numinus]

Oh, is this site work for you?

No. I do both in the same laptop. Duh?

[Dawkinsrocks]

It is hard to understand.

Why do a few human cells with no brain have a greater right to life than any other form of life and especially that of actual people who are routinely executed in the US or bombed to death?

And you missed my point about work/debating.

No surprise there.

[numinus]

It is hard to understand.

Here's a thought experiment for your contemplation.

We know that matter is in a constant state of motion is it not? In the natural sciences, an entity's motion describes its nature -- its size, shape, color, state, etc?

If existence is dependent on an object's physical nature, then existence is in a constant state of flux from one moment to the next. No truth value can be discerned from an existence in flux.

But we know intuitively that that is not the case. You are the same person you are now as a few moments ago and a few moments hence. And if you suddenly became catatonic, you would still be you despite it. Therefore, we conclude that though your material constitution changes, something in you -- your essence -- does not.

It is this essence, the essence of a human being, that we assert with an inalienable right to live.

Why do a few human cells with no brain have a greater right to life than any other form of life

Because when human existence can be discerned, either intuitively or throught the operation of logic, whether in a fetus, an infirm individual, a person of different ethnicity, cultural background, gender, etc., we know that such an existence is the same regardless -- and the operation of the law, equal.

and especially that of actual people who are routinely executed in the US or bombed to death?

Here is where pale and I depart. Pale believes that due process of law can somehow strip a human being of his inalienable right. It is a patent contradiction because that is only possible IF the law conferred these inalienable rights in the first place -- as in civil rights. But we know that an inalienable right is independent of positive law.

And you missed my point about work/debating.

No. I often work while posting here. Most of the time, I work on data that takes a few minutes to a few hours to process.

No surprise there.

Indeed. I have known you were slow from the beginning.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Most of your post was gobbledegook and my point about asking you if posting here is work for you was to suggest that it can't be the other alternative you offered ie debating.

But Americans are not very smart when it comes to humour.

There is no argument that confers right to life on a few brainless cells that does not confer it on all life.

So whilst you might not be as hypocritical as palefacedliar you have still got a problem.

[palerider]

There is no argument that confers right to life on a few brainless cells that does not confer it on all life.

So whilst you might not be as hypocritical as palefacedliar you have still got a problem.

Actually there is. It is the same argument that confers the right to life to you. Now, if you can prove that unborns are not exactly as human as you, then you can effectively separate them from you and prove that they have no right to live. Simply saying "brainless cells" does not make an argument. It is like saying that until you have permanant teeth you have no right to live. Human beings exist before they have permanant teeth and they exist before they develop brains.

Consider children born with ancephaly. They have no brain. They will never have a thought, a feeling, feel pain, or be aware of their surroundings, but they are considered by the law to be human beings. They can not be summarily killed. Your brain is not what makes you a human being. I do invite you to try to prove that it is rather than simply repeat your non arguments ad nauseum as if the repeating constituted some sort of argument.

So far, you have failed to prove even the smallest part of your argument. By the way, I do enjoy the name calling on your part. It highlights your indimidation. You are trying to prove your bravery by impotent name calling. Look around a bit. People who are confident in their ability to defend their positions rarely, if ever, change peoples screen names. We are not intimidated. Those who routinely go about changing others screen names are most often the very ones who couldn't argue thier way out of a paper bag.

As to suggesting that I am a hypocrit. To date, you have not proved that either. You claimed that I said some things, but are completely unable to bring quotes from me forward. That would be because in addition to being a poor debater, you are a liar.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Being a human being confers no right to life.

A corpse of an ex-person is a human being but it does not have the right to life.

[Mr. Mark]

What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? if a woman chooses to allow the posibility of pregnancy, then she must also accept the personal responsibility to take of a child. IF YOU DONT WANT KIDS, USE CONTRACEPTION OR DONT DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

[Dawkinsrocks]

There are lots of circumstances where a woman can get pregnant through no fault of her own.

[numinus]

There are lots of circumstances where a woman can get pregnant through no fault of her own.

But the thing is, that is not what this thread is all about. It is about a woman who gets an abortion, in the words of pale, without legal consequences.

[numinus]

Most of your post was gobbledegook...

Why am I not surprised?

But Americans are not very smart when it comes to humour.

Haven't you heard? I am not an american. And even if I were an american, there is nothing particularly humorous with your comic attempt.

There is no argument that confers right to life on a few brainless cells that does not confer it on all life.

Correct.

A law operates on like things.

So whilst you might not be as hypocritical as palefacedliar you have still got a problem.

And what problem might that be, eh?

[Dawkinsrocks]

People who don't get a joke always say it wasn't funny after they have to have it explained to them.

You seem to accept that a few brainless cells do not have a right to life so I think we are done.

[numinus]

You seem to accept that a few brainless cells do not have a right to life so I think we are done.

You are indeed a moron to think that. As if my posts are not clear enough.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Your posts are generally sufficiently arcane to be incomprehensible.

This is a reflection of the indefensible views you hold.

Try science, it's much better than superstition

[numinus]

This is a reflection of the indefensible views you hold.

LMAO.

One need not put up an elaborate defense against your impotent attacks in the first place.

You really are over-estimating your chances here.

[Dawkinsrocks]

Of course I am

You believe in a deity for which there is no evidence and I would bet that you have made him your lord and saviour which is a pretty good indication of your ability to discern truth from fiction.

[Jarlaxle]

Your posts are generally sufficiently arcane to be incomprehensible.

You're just NOW realizing that, Dawkins?

[numinus]

Of course I am

You believe in a deity for which there is no evidence and I would bet that you have made him your lord and saviour which is a pretty good indication of your ability to discern truth from fiction.

My ability to discern truth rests in logic, which I provided a mountain of, and you provided nothing whatsoever.

Which only proves what I have said all along -- AGAINST INVINCIBLE STUPIDITY, EVEN GOD CONTENDS IN VAIN.

[numinus]

You're just NOW realizing that, Dawkins?

What I said is NOT obscure, NOR secret, NOR obsolete, NOR esoteric.

If you must know, I am talking about plato's idealist philosophy, the theory of the natural rights of man, and the idea of modern constitutionalism -- general education topics in most undergraduate courses in most colleges and universities.

That you find it arcane, in my opinion, suggest the lack of higher education on your part, not to mention on that of your friend's, dawkinsrocks. After all, cowboy rednecks in your part of the world have little use for an education in the classics.

HEE-HAW!

[palerider]

Try science, it's much better than superstition

Odd that you would now seek refuge in science. There is no hiding place for the likes of you in science. You have proven yourself to be a flat earther who disregards science in favor of his own pseudoreligious dogma.

"the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed.)

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

These are just a few although practically every textbook on the subjects of embryology, fetology, human developmental biology, and OB/gyn say the same thing. LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY, EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, these are science dawkins. Not soft science, but hard science; advanced degree hard.

You suggest that someone "try science" beause "it is much better than superstition". I would like to see some of the science you suggest he try. I would like to see any credible science at all that supports your argument. The fact is that your entire argument is nothing more than an expression of superstitious dogma. You are unable to wrap your mind around the scientific facts so you glom on to a meaningless soundbite like 'brainless cells' and wave it around like a religious icon.

Lets see your science dawkins.

[Dawkinsrocks]

You can quote all the stuff you like.

None of it explains why aborting a few brainless cells is wrong.

So cut the verbiage from your oh so boring posts and explain, in your own words, what is wrong with aborting a few brainless cells.

Try to avoid emotive terms like 'child' when referring to the foetus.

Oh and try to make your explanation consistent with your view that a corpse is a human being and you don't mind actual people being executed or killed in war.

Off you go.

Knock yourself out.

[palerider]

You can quote all the stuff you like.

"stuff"? Hard and credible science that proves you wrong is "stuff"? I laugh in your face.

None of it explains why aborting a few brainless cells is wrong.

It explains why unborns are exactly as human as you. As to whether it is right or wrong to kill them, you would have to ask whether it is right or wrong to kill anyone; the law says that self defense is the only valid reason for one human bing to kill another.

By the way einstein. A fetus is not brainless. By the time the child may be correctly called a fetus, it has a brain. I understand that you are completely ignorant on the topic of human developmental biology, but it isn't rocket science and even someone like you should be able to at least learn the basics.

So cut the verbiage from your oh so boring posts and explain, in your own words, what is wrong with aborting a few brainless cells.

I have. Sorry you are unable to wrap your mind around it. Funny that someone of your obviously limited intellectual wattage would present intelligence as a requisite to be a human being.

Try to avoid emotive terms like 'child' when referring to the foetus.

Arent you just the very shining definition of a hypocrite? Asking that we avoid "emotive" language when you son't seem to be able to finish a thought without saying "brainless cells". Do show me such a term in either a scientific text or a legal brief. Both science and the law identify them as children. Do provide some substantiation for your request.

Oh and try to make your explanation consistent with your view that a corpse is a human being and you don't mind actual people being executed or killed in war.

Reference to war in a discussion on the topic of abortion, is, as I have already explained to you, a logical fallacy. It is a red herring and in no way alters the facts as they apply to abortion. I understand that concepts like logical fallacy must be difficult for you to grasp, but do be a good lad and try.

[numinus]

Good god!

Is there any way to impose an iq requirement on the membership of this forum???

Dawkinsrocks alone pulls down the iq average of the members by at least 10 points. Quite frankly, it is embarassing.

[Dawkinsrocks]

As you say palerider a foetus is as human as an actual person.

But also as human as a corpse.

So please try again.

Why has a few brainless cells the right to life?

To be fair it wouldn't suprise me if you were to defend the right to life of a corpse.

You are arguments are that confused.

Numinus, your insults are neither funny nor clever.

I wouldn't mnd if they were but they just make you sound stupid

[vyo476]

Good god!

Is there any way to impose an iq requirement on the membership of this forum???

Dawkinsrocks alone pulls down the iq average of the members by at least 10 points. Quite frankly, it is embarassing.

Knock it off, numinus. You know the rules. Try following them.

[Libsmasher]

- Is a fetus a member of the species homo sapiens, or is it some other species? Is it crabgrass? Is it an elephant? No, it is homo sapiens, a human being.

- Is it alive or dead? Unquestionably, it is alive.

- It is a live human being.

- To get around their logical dead end, given the above, pro-abortionists invent a novel construct - "personhood". In this construct, human beings who are not "persons" can be killed. Where does the definition of "person" come from? The completely arbitrary fiat of judges.

- Any thoughtful person will be able to see that using this artificial "personhood" concept superposed on human beings, in the future other human beings may be excluded from being "persons" in the same arbitrary way (the severly disabled? the elderly?) with the same consequences.

[SW85]

Why has a few brainless cells the right to life?

If it were merely a few brainless cells there would be no need to abort it, now would there?

[Libsmasher]

If it were merely a few brainless cells there would be no need to abort it, now would there?

Quit trying to c