Republicans thank the Christian voters

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
i disagree, i dont think its a potential life, i think its an actual life

i think its a human life, this is just a human in its earlier form. while sperm and eggs are actually part of the mother and father, an embryo is an entirely new person, a new human

A highly underdeveloped, unborn fetus incapable of life as a seperate unit is not it's own life. No more than a mole is a seperate life from you. It's not living on it's own; It's not THINKING on it's own; It's not MOVING on it's own; Therefore it's still part of the host, and is not it's own being.

There is nothing that sets it apart from its host.

edit: now, if you're referring to the fetuses that are developed past the first trimester, sure, I can see where you're coming from... but to outlaw all abortions completely doesnt make sense.

[billyvnilly]

you know, the general public didnt even care about abortions until the invention of the sonogram and the general public viewed little collections of cells.


WOMEN'S CHOICE will always be my pro-choice arguement. Since no one will ever be able to tell the other when human life begins.


which came first the chicken or the egg? the egg is not a chicken. the egg will become a chicken.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
There is nothing that sets it apart from its host.

except, of course its completely different dna

just because you are too ignorant to see a human life, does not mean its not there..

[squakMix]

Originally posted by electricmime
just because you are too ignorant to see a human life, does not mean its not there..

Thanks for the personal attack bud.

You get cornered so you go with the "oh, well, you're just ignorant!" argument.



Define "Completely different dna". The dna is basically the same, except for the subtle changes in a few chromosomes.

"A wart is a human life because it has different cell information, therefore you shouldnt be able to kill them."

give me a break.

[Mattress]

Billyvnilly said:
living things have A)brain activity B)heart beat.....hence the spinal cord/brain and vasculature

From this site:

3 Weeks after Fertilization
The eyes and spinal cord are visible and the developing brain has two lobes.

4 Weeks after Fertilization
The heart is beating. The portion of the brain associated with consciousness (the cerebrum) and internal organs such as the lungs are beginning to develop and can be identified.

Book: The First Nine Months of Life. By Geraldine Lux Flanagan. Simon & Shuster, 1962. Second edition. Page 35 states that in the third week, "the brain has two lobes" and "the early spinal cord is bordered by the future vertebrae and muscle segments." A picture shows the brain lobes and spinal cord.

Gray's Anatomy - The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, 1995. Page 329 states that at 19-21 days, "The cranial half of the groove, representing developing brain, begins to develop cephalic flexure, optic primordia become visible…"

"Fetus." By Frank D. Allan in the Encyclopedia of Human Biology. Academic Press, 1997. Volume 3. Page 954 states that by the end of the third week, a "primitive heart derived from the medsoblast initiates circulation."

Gray's Anatomy - The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone, 1995. Page 329 states that at 21-27 days, "primary cerebral vesicles appear." "Rudimentary limb buds appear and the heart tubes fuse into a common loop in which contractile activity commences. The primordia of the thyroid gland, lungs, liver, pancreas, and mesonephric tubules are all identifiable."

squakmix said:
The point is that a fetus isnt a "human life" yet (but rather a dot of developing skin tissue), but can eventually BECOME a life.

after about ten weeks of pregnancy the embryo has developed most major body structures. From this point until birth, the growing baby is called a fetus. Fetuses are definately not little lumps of unformed flesh as you claim.
does that look like a dot of developing skin tissue to you?

squakmix said:
You're referring to POTENTIALITY, which is bullshit and you know it. There's a potential life in every sperm you waste masterbaiting.

There's potential life in every second you waste NOT pumping out babies.

those are not the same thing.
The difference is, if you do nothing to a pregnant woman eventually a baby will be born. it's not just a potential life it is already in motion and unstopped eventually you get a baby. This is different from not constantly attempting to reproduce.

A ball resting on the ground does not have potential enegry just because I haven't picked it up and thrown it into the air.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by squakMix
Thanks for the personal attack bud.

You get cornered so you go with the "oh, well, you're just ignorant!" argument.



Define "Completely different dna". The dna is basically the same, except for the subtle changes in a few chromosomes.

"A wart is a human life because it has different cell information, therefore you shouldnt be able to kill them."

give me a break.

a wart is not a human, its a virus, it will never become a human, it never was a human

and an embryo is a different dna, its just based on the parents dna, but it is clearly not the mother or the fathers dna

i suppose one could argue that its not alive until it can survive by itself, but using that logic a newborn isnt alive either is it?

if a newborn baby isn't thinking for itself and is dependant on others, is it not alive? is it not human?

[deeder7001]

based on squak's logic, none of us were/are really dependant on ourselves until we are 18 years old as we still live with our parents and can't take care of ourselves just yet.

so by what squak's saying, i'm not even alive yet as i live with my grandma still and haven't moved out to my own place yet.

[shakey_snake]

So I can euthanize my 17 year old brother?

[zootm]

I suggest no-one dignify that one with a response

[Wolfgang]

Maybe a response similar to shakey's reply to what Raz said earlier:

---


As they say, three dashes are better than a million words.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by Raz
Cabo, but if it is still potential, then you have also deprived millions of sperm their future conciousness every time you masturbate. Who are you to draw the line?

I'm not drawing a line. I said there was another side to the argument that was left out.

Now as far as my opinion... IMHO, human life begins at conception. Hence my anti-abortion stance.

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Sperm aren't aware of anything that goes on around them. Only an organism can be, and sperm are nowhere near that.

Cabo, it depends on your definition of a person. I wouldn't call a foetus a person. Of course there's the whole grey area between a born human and a sperm, but still, as xzxzzx said, until it can sustain itself, I don't think you can call it a person, and therefore you can't give it rights "as a person".

A newborn can not sustain itself. If this argumant is valid, why do we prosecute the mother that leaves their newborn in a trashcan?

[Wolfgang]

Because it is currently against the law. If abortion were legal, you could prosecute her for not aborting the proper way, i.e. in a hospital. In that way you could have control over abortions and not have to deal with abortions with bits of wire, or foetuses in rubbish bins.

[xzxzzx]

A newborn is chemically able to sustain itself, and therein lies the distinction. It, without special assistance from another organism, respirates, circulates, digests, and excretes. It cannot generally feed itself, but no one can sustain themselves if given a hostile enough environment. Hell, YOU probably couldn't sustain yourself without others growing your food. That is completely different from a embryo.

At three weeks, the embryo is on the path to developing into an organism. However, it is not an organism, not yet. Mattress makes a good argument that actively preventing a life from developing is different from passively not putting anything onto the path to become a life, and it's certainly true, though the line is still vague - what about using the morning-after pill?

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Because it is currently against the law. If abortion were legal, you could prosecute her for not aborting the proper way, i.e. in a hospital. In that way you could have control over abortions and not have to deal with abortions with bits of wire, or foetuses in rubbish bins.

I was not talking about a fetus, I was talking about a newborn. [edit]Abortion is legal. Some women choose to go ahead and have the baby, then ditch it in the trash later. I was asking, based on your argument, 'why is this wrong?'[/edit]

Originally posted by xzxzzx
A newborn is chemically able to sustain itself, and therein lies the distinction. It, without special assistance from another organism, respirates, circulates, digests, and excretes.

Thanks for the clarification, but that is a slimey distinction... the kid could still not sustain itself: providing shelter, clothing, food, water, protection, etc.

Simply put, like the fetus, it is not capable of physically sustaining itself. Going back to my example above, that would justify someone letting a 1 day old die in a trashcan. They could argue that just like a fetus, this one day old newborn could not sustain itself, therefore it has no right to its future.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Thanks for the clarification, but that is a slimey distinction... the kid could still not sustain itself: providing shelter, clothing, food, water, protection, etc.

Neither can you. You rely heavily on society, just as society relies heavily on you. That is not the argument at all.

The argument is this: That an embryo is not a seperate biological entity until it's functions work to a point that it does not have to rely entirely on an entity supplanting it's internal stuructures to sustain itself.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Relying on society to do what? I am perfectly capable of finding shelter, building a fire, defending myself, catching bugs to eat if I have to...

I don't have to rely on society. A newborn relies on its parents for everything but air. And feeding a newborn is 'supplanting its internal structures' with nourishment.

So tell me again why a newborn is different from a fetus 5 minutes or 5 weeks or 5 months before birth.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Relying on society to do what? I am perfectly capable of finding shelter, building a fire, defending myself, catching bugs to eat if I have to...

So if I drop you in the middle of the desert, you're going to survive more than 24 hours? Unlikely. I can hear the retort already - well, of course not, that's in the desert, but it's an environment. More hostile than you can probably survive in, unless you've learned how to do so. A newborn does not need to rely on a parent, it can rely on anything capable of bringing it food, giving it shelter, etc.

You're not supplanting internal structures by giving something food, you're supplanting external mechanisms, or behaviors. You are if your body is respirating for another body.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Look, I really don't care to argue semantics, a'right?

How do you know I couldn't survive? It doesn't matter - You are ignoring my point. An adult, even a teen or younger child, can fend for themselves under normal circumstances - at least somewhat. It is not an unreasonable idea for a child of say 10 years old to be lost in the desert and survive find his way out. Could a child, 1 hour old, get a drink of water?

My point is this: a newborn can do nothing for itself but breathe. According to your argument, what makes it so much more alive (human, or whatever you want to call it) than a fetus 5 minutes before birth?

[xzxzzx]

It isn't. I'm not arguing that there's some sort of magic that happens as soon as a fetus is out of a mother's womb that makes it become a seperate entity. Not at all. There is no way a child should be aborted at 35 weeks. It's about capability.

[edit]Clarified.[/edit]

[CaboWaboAddict]

OK, if there is not much difference in capability, then why is it not OK for a woman to dump her 1 hour old baby in a trashcan?


(I'll be back tomorrow.)

[zootm]

I take it xzxzzx's edit was after Cabo's post, since it answers it...

[xzxzzx]

The same reason it's not OK for a child to be "aborted" at 35 weeks - it's already it's own biological entity.
[edit]

Originally posted by zootm
I take it xzxzzx's edit was after Cabo's post, since it answers it...

Um, yeah, I realize that now, but I edited the post almost immediately...
[/edit]

[squakMix]

I'm not going to argue anymore - there's too much I want to/need to respond to, and I just dont feel like fucking pumping out a whole webpage of response just to make you understand what I'm thinking. In other words: This is becoming annoying, not at all constructive.

There's let's see: atleast 10 anti-abortionists in this thread constantly checking it and responding to it.

...now there's TWO pro-choice arguers in this thread - me being the only one that responds consistantly.

My final statement/questions:

I read some of what matress posted, and apparently none of you saw my post in the other page - I can see Why you might feel bad about killing a baby that's already atleast a bit developed. I CANNOT see why you are against early-stage abortions. It doesnt make sense. What the hell makes the fact they have human dna so special??? I think MURDER is wrong and different because of the fact that murder involves dying human BEINGS, and can Ultimately affect you in some way. Why would you have any descision regarding something that can never happen to you or anything that's even a bit conscious? A highly underdeveloped fetus isnt a being yet. Sure, it's got some human tissue, but it is NOT a being yet.

You have no idea why someone would get an abortion - I know It's tough for whoever has it done. It's not as if people walk around saying "I'm going to go hurt myself and pay hundreds of dollars to kill my baby for no explainable reason!". It's not like that. People get abortions because of CRISIS. I would feel better getting an abortion early and not going through pregnancy and not getting (in some cases) POOR, instead of going through the pregnancy just to abandon my baby in the hospital. As much as you dont want the baby, it still hurts (bad) to leave something YOU have made and given birth to and supported for 9. Basically: In most cases, ending an early pregnancy can be better than giving your baby up for adoption (sphycologically).

Why are men influencing this descision at all?

Why does this concern ANYONE that's not having it done at all? Seriously: why would you care at all? It doesnt affect your life one bit. The fact that someone can get an abortion done may be against your opinion/beliefs, but that's it.

My main argument for why I am pro-choice:

It doesnt affect me in any way. I should'nt have the right to control what someone does if it doesnt affect me AT ALL.

Q: But what about people that do drugs? This doesnt affect you.
A:It does. If drugs are legal in most case violence and or illegal activities will come with them. I also know I dont want everyone high all the time because drivers that do drugs can be just as dangerous as drivers that are drunk.

Q: But a fetus is a human being: It's got different dna, therefore it's seperate from me.
A:The reason people are against murder and are against the death of any human is because they know that they're conscious and thinking humans; human beings that can be murdered are actually like you. You wouldnt feel so bad if someone that's been in a coma all his life (and was born this way), and was braindead at this point was killed would you? Same deal here.

Originally posted by xzxzzx
It isn't. I'm not arguing that there's some sort of magic that happens as soon as a fetus is out of a mother's womb that makes it become a seperate entity. Not at all. There is no way a child should be aborted at 35 weeks. It's about capability.

Exactly what a point of mine in the last page was (and a point I made above).

[electricmime]

the only reason a baby can live outside the mother at 5 months is because medical science can keep it alive... so when medical science gets to the point that it can let the baby grow outside the mother at 2 days, will that make the baby alive in your mind

whats so special about human dna? well.. first of all, they arent HER cells to kill, second.. they are CLEARLY a human

drug use: although i wouldnt do what are considered illegal drugs, i do not understand the point of them being illegal.. except that when people buy them, the money goes to terrorists when it could be going to are country and help our economy... and that instead of going to jail, it would be easier for them to get treatment and *hopefully* get rid of the addiction.. buts that really has nothing to do with this does it? in short.. thats someone doing something to themsevles... a mother getting an abortion may seem like shes doing it to herself... but its not.. she killing SOMEONE ELSE

it doesnt matter if they are not yet in the stage where they recognize she is killing them, they are human, and given the correct conditions they will grow to become a baby, which given the right conditions will grow to an adult..

(though do you think a baby has any more an idea you are killing it? its brain isnt highly developed yet)

and i only called you ignorant, because you seem to only care about humans when they become cute and cuddly and not when they ACTUALLY exist..

You have no idea why someone would get an abortion - I know It's tough for whoever has it done.

i have no idea why people would murder their entire families either.. but they do it, so dont give me that bullshit

Why are men influencing this descision at all?

if its the mans child, or if its not actually of the womans body(as i said its not HER cells to kill)

why shouldnt men have an opinion on the matter?

why is it that when a child is born, fathers many many legal(and moral) responsibilities.. but when it comes to their child lives or dies, its sexist to care?

[electricmime]

double post

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by electricmime
and i only called you ignorant, because you seem to only care about humans when they become cute and cuddly and not when they ACTUALLY exist..

So pull your head out of your ass and read what he's actually saying, not what you'd like to think pro-choice advocates say.

[ShyShy]

Originally posted by electricmime

i have no idea why people would murder their entire families either.. but they do it, so dont give me that bullshit

I swore that I wouldn't post in this thread again, but, wow, your thoughtless comment proved me wrong.

YOU have no right to sit there on your pedestal looking down your nose at the couple that reached the heartbreaking decision to abort the pregnancy because the fetus showed signs of KFS.
My best friend was heart broken, they had been wanting that baby so badly. After an autopsy was performed, the fetus had a badly deformed heart, and the brain was not developed as it should have been.

So, tell me, electricmime, are you going to tell my friends that they made the wrong choice? Now, before you post your response, you had better think long and hard about what you want to say, and how you say it.

[shakey_snake]

I would have had that baby.
It deserves a chance, no matter how badly misformed it was.

Are you trying to say that my aunt, who has a fairly severe case of KFS doesn't deserve a chance to live? She's one of the most joyful people I've ever met.

[ShyShy]

*sighs*

All I tried to say in my last post, is not to belittle someone's obviously painful choice. I'm glad your aunt is alive and well. I'm not trying to take away the joy that some parents have with a child that was not born "normal" (whether physical or mental health).

Who knows shakey, if your grandparents had the technology then as doctors do have now, and knowing that your aunt in utero was struck with KFS, would they have chosen differently? I'm going out on a limb and guess they would've kept the baby.

My best friend would've too, if the prognosis of the baby having a chance to survive and make it through childhood, and have a chance at a good quality of life. But, faced with such drastic odds, her and her husband came upon the decision they went with.

(following paragraph intended for no one in particular) I'm not here to change your mind, I just hope you understand that there are many different situations that lead up to the choice of abortion. And until you've been put into a similar situation, no one here has the right to belittle that choice.

[Raz]

Originally posted by electricmime
except that when people buy them, the money goes to terrorists when it could be going to are country

Hahahaha. You actually bought into that. Wow.

[electricmime]

to me, thats more a debate on euthanasia than abortion, granted, it was a pre-birth euthanasia.. though, i disagree with euthanasia as well, mainly because i dont think its our right to kill someone because they are handicapped(though as i hope to have made perfectly clear, i dont believe in killing any human)

i will admit, your original post made me angry, while im not saying this was your friends reasoning at all, it reminded me of a child and his mother, who live up the street from me.. and he has muscular dystrophy, his father 'just couldnt take it' and abandoned them.. because he wanted a 'normal' family.. and not a 'freak' for a child(his words, not mine)

i realize, that was not neccesarily their resoning, but just the reminder that those kind of people are out there makes me disgusted

[electricmime]

Originally posted by Raz
Hahahaha. You actually bought into that. Wow.

Hahahahaha. You actually missed the point completely. Wow.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by ShyShy
YOU have no right to sit there on your pedestal looking down your nose at the couple that reached the heartbreaking decision to abort the pregnancy because the fetus showed signs of KFS.

I'm sorry that your friends had such a difficult decision. I disagree with their choice though. There is someone somewhere that would welcome the chance to adopt that child no matter how bad its problems were. Why not enrich someone's life instead of ending one? (Please don't take this wrong - I'm not trying to judge, just pointing out an alternative.)

[ShyShy]

What you forgot to quote from my post, Cabo, was that baby's heart was badly malformed and the brain was not developing normally.

While being monitored over a month, the baby's fetal signs were not good. The doctors could not give my friends any hope of the baby even making it full term. In the end, my friend's own health went downhill from the anxiety and the stress.

And, now, I've really got to stop looking into this thread. Like I've said before, I'm not here to change your mind. I really wish there was no need for abortion, every child born healthy and wanted. But, that's not reality. And illegalising abortion, to me, is akin to burying your head in the sand, it won't make it go away.

But, it's all my personnal opinion, something that won't make headlines or start a Women's Revolution. Just little ol' me's opinion.

Peace out, folks

[Raz]

Originally posted by electricmime
Hahahahaha. You actually missed the point completely. Wow.

It might not seem important but it certainly undermines your credibility a lot.

[electricmime]

Originally posted by Raz
It might not seem important but it certainly undermines your credibility a lot.

how does that undermine the credibility of my opinions about abortion?

but of course, his comparison of a WART to an embryo doesnt undermine his credibility at all? and their false quotes doesnt at all try to make it seem like we are saying something we are clearly not.oh yeah, nevermind.. i forgot, i am the only one guilty of that

though, i dont think you totally understood what i meant...

current anti-drug commercials(at least the ones for pot) use various reasons why it shouldnt be legal, a few of them squak mentioned

to quote sqauk:"If drugs are legal in most case violence and or illegal activities will come with them." if the government regulated it.. instead of gangs and drug dealers, people would probably buy it at the store.. not saying there wouldnt be an underground drug world, in which illegal activity exists.. but it would probably be reduced, in addition, the drugs would be taxable

another reason is that people who drive and are high are dangerous to others.. well lets face it, you shouldnt do that, but that has nothing do with the drug, you arent supposed to drink and drive or hell, even use cough medicine and drive.. but that doesnt mean either of those (the drug, not the combination) should be illegal, it just means that there should be regulations, just like with everything else

again.. i have no idea what any of this has to do with abortion(or more specifically my credibility)..

unless you count arguments that women who do drugs while pregnant are child abusers, though if they made it easier for them to get and encouraged them to get treatment for the addiction, the child would probably be better off than sending the mother to jail

maybe its not that the drugs should become legal, but that it should become less a legal issue, and more a health issue... it should be more based around helping the people kick the addiction, instead of putting them in jail for it

(please note, just in case it wasnt obvious, because apparently not everything i say is.. in the first part, i was specifically talking about pot, while in the last i was talking about drugs in general .. and mainly heroin and cocaine)

[squakMix]

Great way to forget the rest of the quote.

[Talbain]

Abortion's murder. You're killing a living being. I personally think that the person should have to take responsibility for what what they did, and have a child, even if their only plans are to give it to an adoption agency. Obviously, if it's the mother's life versus the baby's, the mother's wins out, but even then, that's basically a lose-lose situation. No matter the outcome you're losing a life.

[Wolfgang]

Now there's a different point of view.

[xzxzzx]

Originally posted by Wolfgang
Now there's a different point of view.

I'm a member of the International Sarcasim Society. Like we need your support.