the truth about abortion

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
Why define it at all? Abortion can be thought of trading one being's life for another. We'd have the choice of killing lifeform (a) or lifeform (b). In that case, I choose the lesser of two evils. Heck, even if constitutionally they are considered human, we can still constitutionally choose the lesser of two evils.

I'm just telling you that it is the current legal debate. The USSC decided that, if theologians and philosophers couldn't, it also couldn't determine when the onset of personhood occurred, so women can do more or less whatever they want at any stage of the pregnancy. So, for any legal resolution to be achieved to limit abortions, it must be based on some definition of the onset of personhood at a certain stage of pregnancy. That's why it's generally all-or-nothing - because of the way the two sides would try to define the onset of personhood. Currently, in the legal sense, it occurs at the moment of birth. This is clearly illogical, however, and is why Roe v. Wade could be overturned. The other side wants to define it at conception, since it's difficult-to-impossible to define it anywhere between conception and birth.

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: mribnik1

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
agman needs to go back to kansas

Thank you for your useless comment.

I wouldn't consider it useless. As a man myself, I have absolutely no understanding of what it would be like to be pregnant for 9 months even if I wanted to have the child. I can't imagine what it would be like to be forced into having a child you didn't want, all other issues set aside. I say this because people who think abortions should be illegal, often state that the woman can "simply" have the baby and put it up for adoption. A majority of these people are men, and have no clue as to what that would be like.

I'm not saying having a baby is easy. But just because something is not easy does not mean we shouldn't do it. We can provide help to those women who do not want the baby but do give birth to them and put them up for adoption. I would gladly contribute if such an organization existed.

I'm sure it's difficult, but I'm a man, so I have no idea. I'm sure it's much more difficult than anything I've ever had to do, that's for sure.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Agman
I did list my reasons. Abortion = murder because your killing a living breathing human being. Therefore, since murder = wrong. Abortion is wrong. Is that simple enough for you??

If it was a living breathing human being it would still not be that simple. Unfortunately for you, the fetus doesn't breathe (well - it breathes amniotic fluid in the middle/late 3rd trimester), and if life is delineated by cortical activity, then it certainly doesn't live... again well into the 3rd trimester.

Your tactic of: "it's gross, therefore it must be wrong" is a despicable attempt to appeal to the lowest possible denominator. And I suspect you're using it, because the other tactics require you to present an argument.

Now... would you like me to go ahead and print out the pictures of women with perforating peritonitis, or a flesh-eating staph infection from back-alley abortions. Oh, but I forget, their lives are not important to you - you only care about people up until the moment of their birth.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I'm just telling you that it is the current legal debate. The USSC decided that, if theologians and philosophers couldn't, it also couldn't determine when the onset of personhood occurred, so women can do more or less whatever they want at any stage of the pregnancy. So, for any legal resolution to be achieved to limit abortions, it must be based on some definition of the onset of personhood at a certain stage of pregnancy. That's why it's generally all-or-nothing - because of the way the two sides would try to define the onset of personhood. Currently, in the legal sense, it occurs at the moment of birth. This is clearly illogical, however, and is why Roe v. Wade could be overturned. The other side wants to define it at conception, since it's difficult-to-impossible to define it anywhere between conception and birth.

My point was that it could legally be defined at conception AND in that case, abortion could still be legal and constitutional.

So lets just legally define it at conception (even though it scientifically could be defined in the middle of the pregnancy at the point that it can live on its own). Get that useless defintion out of the way. Then lets start making sensible laws.

 

[polm]

Fetus ? Human

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: mribnik1

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
agman needs to go back to kansas

Thank you for your useless comment.

I wouldn't consider it useless. As a man myself, I have absolutely no understanding of what it would be like to be pregnant for 9 months even if I wanted to have the child. I can't imagine what it would be like to be forced into having a child you didn't want, all other issues set aside. I say this because people who think abortions should be illegal, often state that the woman can "simply" have the baby and put it up for adoption. A majority of these people are men, and have no clue as to what that would be like.

That logic doesnt really hold up as a valid reason for exterminating a human life.

So I hate my neighbor who annoys the hell out of me and want to perform a late term abortion on him with a bullet to the back of the head. Most of the people telling me this is illegal have no idea what it has been like to live next ot this guy for the last 9 months. Most people say I should simply put the house up for sale and allow another family to live there. A majority of these people have perfectly fine neighbors that have no clue what is it like.

I wasn't using it as a reason for abortions, I was merely stating that I have a problem with this issue being decided by mostly men. In your opinion it's a human life, but clearly that's not the only opinion.

Here's the problem. I have a different opinion than you do, so I fail to see how your example relates to mine at all. IMO, you wanting to kill your neighbor has nothing to do with this because for one, I wouldn't consider all abortions killing, and two, I wouldn't consider me having no clue as to what it's like being pregnant because I'm male having anything to do with someone not liking someone else. That's the best I could put it into words I'm afraid.

 

[Agman]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Agman
I did list my reasons. Abortion = murder because your killing a living breathing human being. Therefore, since murder = wrong. Abortion is wrong. Is that simple enough for you??

If it was a living breathing human being it would still not be that simple. Unfortunately for you, the fetus doesn't breathe (well - it breathes amniotic fluid in the middle/late 3rd trimester), and if life is delineated by cortical activity, then it certainly doesn't live... again well into the 3rd trimester.

Your tactic of: "it's gross, therefore it must be wrong" is a despicable attempt to appeal to the lowest possible denominator. And I suspect you're using it, because the other tactics require you to present an argument.

Now... would you like me to go ahead and print out the pictures of women with perforating peritonitis, or a flesh-eating staph infection from back-alley abortions. Oh, but I forget, their lives are not important to you - you only care about people up until the moment of their birth.

My tactic WAS NOT to "is gross so is wrong" Since when can you read people's mind and know my thinking?

I only care about people until the momment of their birth?? I not once said that. I admit that there are MEDICAL reasons for which an abortion must occur. Basck-alley abortions is a problem and I admit it. So thats another thing that we must work on. I never said they were not important. But they are not more important than the baby.

In this world we live in nothing is completelty right. Everything has some evil behind it. We as humans cannot do a pure act of good by ourselves.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Agman
My tactic WAS NOT to "is gross so is wrong" Since when can you read people's mind and know my thinking?

Then why even bother with the gross pictures and all the warnings? If it wasn't part of your tactics, why use them?

 

[CellarDoor]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: Agman
I did list my reasons. Abortion = murder because your killing a living breathing human being. Therefore, since murder = wrong. Abortion is wrong. Is that simple enough for you??

If it was a living breathing human being it would still not be that simple. Unfortunately for you, the fetus doesn't breathe (well - it breathes amniotic fluid in the middle/late 3rd trimester), and if life is delineated by cortical activity, then it certainly doesn't live... again well into the 3rd trimester.

Your tactic of: "it's gross, therefore it must be wrong" is a despicable attempt to appeal to the lowest possible denominator. And I suspect you're using it, because the other tactics require you to present an argument.

Now... would you like me to go ahead and print out the pictures of women with perforating peritonitis, or a flesh-eating staph infection from back-alley abortions. Oh, but I forget, their lives are not important to you - you only care about people up until the moment of their birth.

My tactic WAS NOT to "is gross so is wrong" Since when can you read people's mind and know my thinking?

He wasn't reading your mind, he was reading your topic summary. You asked how somebody could look at those gross pictures and possibly be in favor abortions.

 

[Agman]

Then I must change the topic summary. Since is not how I meant it dobe viewed. The purpose of the pictures was to try and refute the beleif that a fetus is not a human being. But my tactic was not to say "gross so its bad".

Think of how lawyers use pictures to prove their point. I was using the pictures to try and prove the point that fetuses are indeed human beings.

War is gross and disgusting, but sometimes it must happen so it doesn't mean that is always wrong.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Agman
Then I must change the topic summary. Since is not how I meant it dobe viewed. The purpose of the pictures was to try and refute the beleif that a fetus is not a human being. But my tactic was not to say "gross so its bad".

War is gross and disgusting, but sometimes it must happen so it doesn't mean that is always wrong.

Why? You don't even have the spine to stand up for your own arguments?

Change the summary if you wish, but I'll copy it down here, just in case:

Topic Title: the truth about abortion
Topic Summary: can you honestly look at this and defend abortion?

 

[Agman]

Well I can't stand for something I did not mean. The gross part is not the basis of argument but proof of my argument.

the underlying issue here is that both the baby and the woman have equal rights. The woman does not have more, neither does the baby. if complications arise the doctor must first try and save both lives. If more complications arise and this is not posible then the doctor in his own discretion must decide which live is more likely to be saved. This is a case by case basis and there is no cookie cutter solution.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Agman
Well I can't stand for something I did not mean. The gross part is not the basis of argument but proof of my argument.

the underlying issue here is that both the baby and the woman have equal rights. The woman does not have more, neither does the baby.

Firstly - a fetus is not a baby. Let's get that clear right now, before you use the amazing not-quite-synonym language tricks. Secondly, we disagree here - I DON'T believe that the fetus and the mother have equal rights. I am firmly convinced that a fully formed (you know, breathing and living) human being has far more rights then a fetus that does not breathe and has no cortical activity.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

What have you done for the millions of babies and children who are in foster homes or orphanages?

 

[Gaard]

Agman, have you ever stated why you think a fetus is a human being?

 

[Agman]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

What have you done for the millions of babies and children who are in foster homes or orphanages?

So what do you propose we do? Let them be dead instead?

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

What have you done for the millions of babies and children who are in foster homes or orphanages?

How about the ones that are brain damaged, retarded, or otherwise unable to care for themselves--EVER? Should an alcohol addicted woman be forced to give birth to a FAS infant? What about one addicted to crack or heroin?

BTW, not refuting anything you said Looney, just supporting. My impression is that this kid is ~12 years old and having those "feelings" for the first time. However, his religious indoctrination prevents healthy sexual exploration without those, you know, feelings of guilt.

 

[Agman]

By the way I am not using language tricks I do beleive that a "fetus" inside the woman is a baby. Of course that is not the scientific term. But I do consider it a living human being. I think that there is enough proof to say that a fetus is a living being. If we go into "well it can't breathe and is not fully formed so its no a human being" Then what you are saying is that everything that is not "normal" or is alive in the same manner that you are is not human. What about people who for some reason or another cannot breathe by themselves but need a machine to do it for them? What about people that are born not completelt formed? By your standards these do not qualify as human beings.

 

[Agman]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Looney

Originally posted by: Agman

Originally posted by: Gand1
go away

why should I go away? People are too scared or afraid of facing reality. Ignorance must be bliss, huh? While millions of babies are being murdered.

What have you done for the millions of babies and children who are in foster homes or orphanages?

How about the ones that are brain damaged, retarded, or otherwise unable to care for themselves--EVER? Should an alcohol addicted woman be forced to give birth to a FAS infant? What about one addicted to crack or heroin?

BTW, not refuting anything you said Looney, just supporting. My impression is that this kid is ~12 years old and having those "feelings" for the first time. However, his religious indoctrination prevents healthy sexual exploration without those, you know, feelings of guilt.

So this is what you resort to when people contradict your opinion. Call them "kids".

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Agman
By the way I am not using language tricks I do beleive that a "fetus" inside the woman is a baby. Of course that is not the scientific term. But I do consider it a living human being. I think that there is enough proof to say that a fetus is a living being. If we go into "well it can't breathe and is not fully formed so its no a human being" Then what you are saying is that everything that is not "normal" or is alive in the same manner that you are is not human. What about people who for some reason or another cannot breathe by themselves but need a machine to do it for them? What about people that are born not completelt formed? By your standards these do not qualify as human beings.

Um, no duh. But a living being is not necessarily a human being. Why won't you answer the why question? Are you one of those "I just do" people?

 

[gimpsoft]

ship Agman to africa , south America etc see how babys children/adults die because there no foodand no money.

and why is he not doing something to help the them ?
does he need a video...............

dude leave it alone you can't help everyone help those who are alive and suffering
@ least they got the easy way out.

that's why i say we should have FREE condoms & Contraception for everyone then you will have a clear mind that noone is being aborted you should be fighting up and down for it.

AND NO CELIBACY DOES NOT WORK P:|eriod
cause for all u know the peole next to you in church
are fing each other but keeping it secret.

 

[Agman]

Originally posted by: gimpsoft
ship Agman to africa , south America etc see how babys children/adults die because there no foodand no money.

and why is he not doing something to help the them ?
does he need a video...............

dude leave it alone you can't help everyone help those who are alive and suffering
@ least they got the easy way out.

that's why i say we should have FREE condoms & Contraception for everyone then you will have a clear mind that noone is being aborted you should be fighting up and down for it.

AND NO CELIBACY DOES NOT WORK P:|eriod
cause for all u know the peole next to you in church
are fing each other but keeping it secret.

Well I AM from a 3rd world country. I was born in the domincan republic and lived there for 13 years. So i know what is like to see starving poor people. So don't even try to pull that card on me. Just because the world is in a bad situation does not mean you can take their right to live away.

 

[tommywishbone]

Eric Rudolph for President!

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dullard
My point was that it could legally be defined at conception AND in that case, abortion could still be legal and constitutional.

The problem is that no, it can't still be legal and constitutional according to the USSC in Roe v. Wade, since every person has the same rights under the constitution, per Amendment XIV, Section 1:

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.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Agman
What about people that are born not completelt formed? By your standards these do not qualify as human beings.

Not completely formed? That means death--nonviable.

What about cortical activity? I keep making this claim and only a few ever pick up on it. If you had zero cortical activity would you be a "person?" If you had to be permanently hooked up to a machine to breathe and eat? If you had no feeling of self? Cant speak, cant think, cant reason, cant move, cant see, cant sense touch. But your heart still beats, and your gut still works, would be a person?