---

A fetus has a parasitic relationship with its carrier (the mother's body.) It is a parasite, in the most scientific form of the word. It cannot reason, it cannot exist on its own; therefore, it is not a human. With the exception of partial-birth abortion, which is despicable and wrong, abortion should be legal for up to the middle-to-the-end of the second trimester, with medical abortion (through pills) most preferable. It should not take you more than six months to decide if you want to keep it. (I say "it" because it is not a baby; it's a select combination of bodily fluids that has the POTENTIAL to become a baby.)

I could never have an abortion, but I could also never ask the 12 year old who was raped to have the baby she was forced into carrying, and I could never ask a woman who used all available types of birth control and still got pregnant, despite being conscientious, and who is too poor to give the child a good life, and is against adoption, to give birth. It's not my decision to make for someone else, for it's her body, whether I agree with it or not. I cannot limit her rights.  

I nearly choked on my water when you said plants can feel, by the way. You were kidding, right?

... I think your arguments themselves are pretty weak, not to mention pedantic and illogical.

---

So if something can't reason, or exist on its own it is not a human. Then the mentally ill aren't humans because the can't reason, or  exist on there own. How does that work?
As for the abortion I think that it's wrong, but that is just my opinion, and I shall not use it to suppress womans right's. Because, I can only imagine the pain that some of them half to endure when they're the victims of rape, and they have to live with the child that resembles' there rapist. However, they could always put the child up for adoption. I think that's better than the alternatives.

I like your opinion, though. I suppose it's similar to mine, in that I personally hate abortion, but it's not my job to tell all women what to do.

---

It doesn't apply to the mentally retarded or mentall incapacitated because they are not physically relient on another human being. This is when you say but what if they can't feed themselves, and what if they are on a respirator, and this is when I reply that they are not living in another's body, and that they exist in their own body.

---

*points up to his previous post*

But that just brings us back to the question: what makes a human? On the one hand, I applaud you for finding a distinction (I hadn't actually thought of that, yet). On the other hand, are we really okay with saying, "Well, it is a person, but it's okay to kill them if they're inside someone else"? If the only difference between being on a respirator and being a fetus is whether you're inside someone else, or lying in a hospital bed, what does that say about the definition of humanity? Are you suggesting that life begins at birth? That seems to be the direction that argument would go.

-------
Make love, not traffic.

The whole anti-abortion argument rests on the notion of epigenesistic potential.  Women do not mourn for their lost egg whenever they menstrate and men do not grieve for their aimlessly spilled seed. Though the two together had the potential to concieve and nurture a unique being, people are not affected.  Even more lives are cast aside with every lost sex cell.  If we do not lament for them, why does the potential of singular being in a foetus apprehend so much gravity and attention?

Then that brings the worth of our own lives in question, the argument above could justify the murder of complex and formed beings.  It would be a slippery slope oiled by lawyers.  

Ultimately, the resolution will be determined in congruence with the present societys values, regardless of the ethical morals of its conformers.

As far as women's rights go,
they don't exist anyways.

(Edited by gloryholeguillotine at 9:53 pm on Dec. 16, 2005)

-------
Black girl black girl
what's your spell to make
the heart in my breast
jump  stop  shake

---

---

let me state that I do so as an intellectual exercise and have no particular axe to grind

---

Same liberal garbage, just trying to hide behind a massive amount of words in hopes that nobody realises that you are just full of crap.

---

law of itself has no effect on morality. People will still harbor the same ill or good will toward their fellows.

---

Yes why have any laws since they have no effect on morality?

Why have laws against murder, rape, theft, etc.?  They obviously mean nothing as these events occur on a regular basis in our world?

---

If there were trillions of beings inhabiting the solar system (a very remote possibility), of what value would that being be to his civilization as a whole? His value would be nil.  

---

Yet again why is murder illegal?  Human life obviously has no value as our population is so high, thus murder is simply population control.

---

Now, let us consider a single human cell. How little its value when compared to the whole organism. We lose and destroy them by the millions daily. Hence, the value of genetic information in general - its specific embodiment being the cell - is of miniscule importance...  
blah blah blah

---

At least it is nice to see that liberals still have no understanding of biology.

Unable to tell the differences between gametes and a seperate and unique individual.

Hell, you even try to mention clones, why obviously aren't unique individuals, but just a pathetic attempt by liberal trash to justify the murder of unique individuals.

You also try to talk about the actualization of potiental.

Blastocys embryos fetus infants toddlers adolescents, none of these lifeforms have actualized their potiental, as they are not human adults, which is the stage in life when your potiental has been actualized...

Thus, you must fully support the elimination of all of those lifeforms as they are just unactualized potiental...

---

The body of a fully grown man (of itself) is no more valuable than that of any other large mammal. Imagine the mind of an adult replaced with the mind of a cow.

---

Now we have partial support for eugenics, we will get the full support for eugenics later in the post.  As really what is the body of a fully grown human worth when it has the mind of a child in it?  

Obviously its value isn't near that of an adult human with an adult human mind, and all others should be eliminated, especially the mentally handicapped.

---

is that moment when the fetus becomes self-aware. I have no realistic idea of when this occurs ... only that is must occur ... and ... the fetus must have moving-working hands and arms for it to occur.

---

Ah yes, the true liberal desire, complete eugenics programs.  Obviously if a human isn't able to have working limbs, then it isn't worth being alive, thus should be eliminated on sight.

---

There are those who assert that the ovum and/or fetus has a "soul" but such a term has no meaning divorced from thought.

---

This is true, but you later prove that you don't have a damn clue as to what you are talking about anyways, so why should I bother explaining...

---

In fact, the only event that could be called the acquisition of a soul occurs at about one year after birth ... the toddler stage.

---

seriously...

Let me guess, infants are just sacks of cells with no soul that should be throw in dumpsters and flushed in the toilet?

---

Those who propose early fetal souls do not know what they are talking about. They regurgitate the ideas of others without understanding  

---

lollerskate, irony alert...

---

From the viewpoint of the mother-to-be all talk about "fetal rights" must seem bizarre since her consent is mandatory.

---

Exactly, children are nothing but property, that can be bought, sold or eliminated at any point in time. No questions asked.

---

There are any number of things she can do or not do which would lead to a failed or endangered pregnancy.  

---

Willfull neglect is a pretty strong charge to bring up against parents who murder their own children...

---

It is often stated that one individual cannot be forced to act on behalf of another  

---

Try that in a court of law where the parents are forced to act on the bahalf of their children when minors commit crimes...

---

by legalistic means is tantamount to slavery

---

Actually your treatment of children is more like slavery...

---

Generally, when abortion prohibitionists argue for no abortion rights at all, their argument peters out when confronting the mother-rights fact with the weak, nonsense-argument that "even a blastula has a soul".  

---

Mother-rights to murder their own children for whatever reason they want?

Sorry that even a blastoid has its own separate and unique DNA, and that the mother made the choice to have sex.

Sorry that the new seprate and unique individual has their own right to existance, and should have its right to be able to choose for itself if it really wants to live or not.

---

Other weak or moderate pro-abortion arguments:  
# "She will get one anyway"
# "The extra children born will be a drain on society"  
# "A mother by force will not be a good mother"  
# "A rape victim should not be forced to propegate the genes of her attacker"  
# "Would anti-abortionists be willing to support the non-aborted child?"  

---

I mean that is such a weak pro-abortion argument.  I mean what kind of pathetic trash would attempt to use it in an argument?

---

reason for the lack of effect will be that law of itself has no effect on morality. People will still harbor the same ill or good will toward their fellows ... The issue itself will go on however ... regardless of outcome.

---

Oh, that's right, you would...

---

but will continue to swing this way and that until it is seen for what it really is ... a non-issue

---

Exactly, murder is a non-issue and shouldn't be discussed.

---

No matter what anyone thinks, does or says, women will continue to get abortions

---

---

Other weak or moderate pro-abortion arguments:  
# "She will get one anyway"  

---

---

Children do their fair share of the dying on this planet

---

People are murdered everyday, why bother caring?

---

The consensus of adult opinion in the United States is that abortions should be allowed early in the pregnancy but not in the last months.

---

There was a vote on this?

Oh yes there was a vote on this.  It was a 6-3 vote on the US Supreme Court, that is known for judicial activism, circumventing the law, and circumventing public opinion.

Reality will show that the general consensus is that people oppose abortion, except in special circumstances, such as rape and medical issues.

---

The best thing that could happen is perfect birth control  

---

Sorry but that has been invented already, it is called keeping your pants on...

---

Put some infallible chemical in the water supply so that no woman  

---

Or maybe if she doesn't want to get pregnant, then she could have her ovaries removed?

---

Without perfect prevention  

---

Because babies are made by magic in liberal world and not by sex, then again in liberal world sex isn't even a choice but something that happens on accident like breathing...

P.S.  STFU and GTFO you idiot...

(Edited by abspwnsyou at 3:59 pm on Dec. 10, 2005)

---

---

Also need to debunk many myths surrounding the issue.

My favorite has to be the whole 'my body, my choice' crap.

The body of your child isn't the same as yours, separate and unique DNA is found in the child that isn't your DNA.  The choice made upon your body is that of having sex, and the circumstances in which you choose to have sex.

Then you also have the liberals always attempting to cling to rape to justify abortion.  Thing is that rape isn't even 1% of the abortions that occur.  Also I don't personally know of anyone who is trying to make abortion due to rape illegal, yet liberals are constantly trying to use rape as a justification for dumb sluts to get abortion.

The vast majority of the people who want abortion to be illegal also understand that there are execptions to every rule.  Rape is a serious issue and should be given special circumstances.  From a moral standpoint I do not agree with aborting these children, but I do understand the justification behind it (especially since your choice to have sex was taken away from you) and believe that it should be legal.  

Also serious medical issues should be a reason for abortion.  If the child is going to be born dead, or the birth will kill the mother, then the mother shouldn't be forced to choose her life over that of the child.  

There should also be an exemption to this rule as well, there should be a punishment for those who willingly/intentionally get pregnant while they have a condition that will keep them from giving birth.  If you already know that it will kill you, then why intentionally set yourself up for it?  If you wish to continue having sex and your condition is one that cannot be resolved in the near future, then get your reproductive organs removed.

To just murder your children simply because you aren't financially stable or you just don't want them, should be a criminal offense.  If you did not wish to have those children, then you could have either not had sex or had your reproductive organs removed.  You made a concious decision to have sex, thus you should be held accountable for the outcome of your choice.

---

---

Also need to debunk many myths surrounding the issue.

---

So you're just coming straight out and admitting that you have no actual reasons for banning abortion, just that people in favor of abortion say stupid things.

---

The body of your child isn't the same as yours, separate and unique DNA is found in the child that isn't your DNA.  

---

E is however growing because of the nutrients e sucks directly from your body. Thus, e's effecting the operation of the woman's body, the woman who should have a say in what happens to her body.

---

From a moral standpoint I do not agree with aborting these children, but I do understand the justification behind it (especially since your choice to have sex was taken away from you) and believe that it should be legal.

---

So in this paragraph you're just basically saying you think babies should be a punishment for choosing to have sex. If you didn't choose to have sex, then it's cool to kill the baby because you shouldn't be punished.

---

There should also be an exemption to this rule as well, there should be a punishment for those who willingly/intentionally get pregnant while they have a condition that will keep them from giving birth.  If you already know that it will kill you, then why intentionally set yourself up for it?  If you wish to continue having sex and your condition is one that cannot be resolved in the near future, then get your reproductive organs removed.

---

So how does one go about proving you did or did not get pregant when you had knowledge of a medical condition preventing birth? And what if it's just like a 50/50 chance? You're a sucker for convulated legal battles that ruin people's lives, aren't ya.

---

To just murder your children simply because you aren't financially stable or you just don't want them, should be a criminal offense.  If you did not wish to have those children, then you could have either not had sex or had your reproductive organs removed.  You made a concious decision to have sex, thus you should be held accountable for the outcome of your choice.

---

If you have sex and everyone knows you don't want children, would it be a crime because you have intent to kill?

And again, you want children to be punishment, awesome.

And as always, you still haven't shown what exactly is bad about the murdering of unborn children in the first place.

The rest of the crap you're right about, people can indeed be stupid. Hey! You're a person!

And to preempt your response: Yes abs, you are very sarcastic, good boy. Who wants the ball? Who wants the ball? Go get the ball! Go get it!

-------
It is my deepest wish that we will one day escape our cradle.