Abortion and Women's Rights

Abortion has nothing to do with women's rights.  Murder is not a right. 

>>351

"More so than just a mere brain, it also takes a MIND and a unique persona."

It doesn't take a unique persona.

"Just the same as my skin cells are human life, so they should be protected as well from the government. But my skin cells aren't a human 'being', just as a fetus isn't a human 'being'. Protection comes for 'beings' with unique personas."

This has been addressed already.  Please stop bringing it up.  There are vast differences between your skin cells and nearly developed human beings (fetuses).  This skin cell comparison is redundant.

"Wrong, abortion stems from the question of when 'personhood' begins."

No, when 'life' begins.  Or, to be more specific:  'human-life'.  It is the proper function of government to protect human life, liberty, and property. 

"But a human fetus isn't a human 'being', like you or me."

It is enough like one to warrant banning it depending on how late in development is.  With this in mind, I firmly oppose you liberals wanting abortion on demand, regardless of how late in development the fetus is.

"Aside from that, to me, 'personhood', NOT life, begins when the fetus starts to develop a unique persona and personhood in the third trimester when the cerebrum begins to develop for thought processes."

Redundant.  It is the proper function of good government to protect LIFE, liberty, and property.

"A fetus isn't an actual human 'being'. It's a potential human 'being'. You are giving rights to the potential."

As soon as it can be considered a 'human-life' it IS an actual, and it is the proper function of good government to protect it.

"A woman's rights superceed that of the fetus' - which has no rights."

Unless the human fetus is considered to be late enough in development that it is a 'human-life' at which point it is the proper function of good government to protect it. 

"If you are speaking in terms of when it develops a unique persona, then read what I said above."

I am not.  I am speaking in terms of when it can be considered a 'human-life'.  At this point, it is the duty of good government to protect it. 

"A living, breathing, voting, woman's right to her own life always superceed that of the potential."

We aren't talking about the rights of the 'potential,' we are talking about the rights of the 'actual', so long as the human fetus is old enough and late enough in development that it may be considered a 'human-life', it is the proper function of government to protect it. 

"I guess this is where we disagree then.  If I had the choice of all abortions allowed or none, I'd take none in a heartbeat."

YES.  THAT was in response to a hypothetical situation offered me by XEL.  It has -NOTHING- to do with my position on abortion at all.  All it means, is that provided I was in that said situation, I would pick no abortions allowed, rather than ALL, due to the the number of innocent human lives that would be lost in the process of handing over 'rights' to women.  It is wrong to punish this minority of individuals.

"Right. LOL."

'LOL'? I guess you can't read, or have very poor comprehension.  I wasn't advocating the ban of abortions entirely.  I was saying that, put in a hypothetical situation where I was given the choice of being forced to choose between allowing ALL abortions, or allowing NONE, I would take NONE.  (NOTE FOR THE SLOW:  This only applies to this /hypothetical/ situation.)

It should be noted that nobody is jumping all over XEL saying he would allow ALL abortions ENTIRELY, because this is a hypothetical situation that has very little to do with his *actual position* on abortion that he takes *outside of this hypothetical situation*, claiming he wants total, unrestricted right to abortion even up until the baby is born, because again, this was a *hypothetical situation* and is not what he *actually wants* for the -=actual situation=-...

"Being in favor of a fetus over the well-being of a woman is entirely absurd."

I'm in favor of the defense of human life, as long as fetuses are old enough to be considered human lives, period.  Even XEL agrees with me here.

"You aren't for 'life' if you're willing to sacrifice a woman's right to her life in favor of a potential fetus, which isn't a human 'being' like the woman is."

If you are talking about the **hypothetical situation** kindly read my previous comments again.  If you aren't talking about that hypothetical situation, then you should note that I have *special exceptions* already laid out for late term abortions.  What is wrong with you? Is your comprehension this bad that you didn't pick up on this yet?  We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus', we are talking about -human lives-.  I am only talking about fetuses late enough in development that they are to be considered -human lives-.  If you advocate abortion even this late, that is just sick, and not even XEL agrees with you here, and hell, he was the one who came long with the whole 'continue making smoothies and crop fertilizer' out of them line of statements.  I can only wonder at how extreme you are.

"You said that, not me."

Since you advocate abortion even when the human brain is partially developed, and you are now making comments about how already-born babies brains aren't entirely developed, well... who knows. 

"Aside from that, a baby is a human 'being', it has rights, and it has a unique persona, and it has a MIND. It would be murder to kill a baby."

Good that you are at least willing to admit that.  I still fail to see what difference it makes whether that baby happens to be inside, or outside the womb, but OK. 

"Quite a fucking lame justification, to be in favor of a flawed ideological stance in place of a woman's right to her life."

It is flawed ideologically -to you- since you apparently don't think life begins at conception.  To them, it does though, so it isn't.

"So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators,"

How did you arrive at *THIS* conclusion? I never said anything of the kind.  I have a mother, a sister, and female friends in my life whom I respect just as I do anyone else.

"which wouldn't surprise me from your position. So you're willing to let women and mothers die. LOL."

I never said that.  Put more words in my mouth plz! In fact, quite the contrary, I said abortions should be allowed when medically necessary, so long as they are done in a humane manner. 

"This whole 'life' crap is getting redundant as well."

No it isn't.  The proper function of good government is to defend life, liberty, and property.  It is only redundant if you don't think one of the proper functions of government is defense of life.

"What matters is personhood, a unique persona, and the mind and when it develops."

No, human life is what matters.  The proper function of government is to defend **LIFE**, liberty, and property. 

"But the fetus doesn't have a will nor mind like the guy whom got thrown off the ship."

You missed out on one small detail:  if it is alive, and it can be considered a 'human-life', then it is to be protected as said above, by law.  This is the function of a good government.

"I have to agree here, unless"

So humans have a right to live, to you, unless....

"the woman was having one hell of a time trying to find an abortion clinic,"

I see, so the right of humans to live is dependent upon whether or not the woman is able to find an abortion clinic or not. 

"had to do lengthly travel,"

LOL, you will even destroy the life of other humans to live if the woman had to endure 'lengthy travel' to an abortion clinic!  You must have quite low regard for human life.

"or had to face lengthly waiting periods that could've threw her into the next trimester."

The waiting periods were in place already.  If she waited long enough for a small waiting period to throw her over into the next trimester, and the baby comes alive in that period of time, that's tough shit.  If you waited that long, I blame you, period. 

"But from another standpoint, statistically, women who do have late abortions were expectant mothers, but whose fetuses developed a severe abnormality,"

I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples.

"Thank you for admitting that your own 'pro-life' committee are the ones responsible making sex education and birth control so scarce."

Thank you for admitting that you would remove the right to life of humans who have abnormalities.

Birth control is widely availible.  If it isn't, you shouldn't be having sex until you get your hands on some.

"Hard to find birth control in the when your own committee is making them so scarce and hard to obtain in the first place."

Whether or not the republicans make birth control difficult to find or not is besides the point that human life should be defended by the government, period.

"Agreed as well, with input from above."

Sounds like you are saying 'I agree human lives should be protected but......' which really doesn't mean much to me.

"52% is a rather large 'segment' if you ask me. A fetus isn't a human 'being' with a unique persona like a woman is."

The situation given involves all fetuses - including those that could be considered human lives who have the right to continue to live.  The question is whether or not to dehumanize a segment of the U.S. population, or to dehumanize **AND MURDER** another segment.  I'd pick the former, as it doesn't involve murder.

"By Federal level, yes. But there is still a lot more work to be done at the state level."

No there isn't.

"Such as employers discriminating against expectant mothers."

Employment should be entirely voluntary.  For someone who talks about liberty, freedom, and rights, to casually discuss forcing employers to hire mothers, is ridiculous to me.  Your ideas are absolutely inconsistent with freedom and liberty, and the foundation of America - freedom, liberty, and the right to life.  Employers have the freedom to hire or not hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  This is as it should be.

"This guy just doesn't give a damn about women."

Yes I do.

"I guess women aren't human beings but carriers by his standpoint."

I never said this. 

"It is relevant since your committee is making birth control and contraceptives harder to find and more expensive,"

This has nothing to do with whether or not human lives have the right to government protection.  It is redundant.

"thus in turn, there will be a rise in the number of unwanted pregnancies."

Supposing people are irresponsible enough to have sex without finding contraceptives first.  If they are, its their fault.

"Are you also saying that you're against contraceptives? Seems like it to me."

No.  I never said I'm against contraceptives.  In fact, I've said I'm for them.  I am for no restrictions whatsoever on contraceptives. 

"Also it is inside the woman, parasitically living off her nutrients and shitting in her bloodsteam. The women may decide what lives and what may not live inside her."

My friend I dragged on my ship is parasitically eating the food I have on my ship, and shitting in my ship as well.  I guess I should have the freedom to throw him off into the deep sea.

"It is enough like one to warrant banning it depending on how late in development is.  With this in mind, I firmly oppose you liberals wanting abortion on demand, regardless of how late in development the fetus is"

I'm not a liberal, and I do not want abortion on demand.

"YES.  THAT was in response to a hypothetical situation offered me by XEL.  It has -NOTHING- to do with my position on abortion at all.  All it means, is that provided I was in that said situation, I would pick no abortions allowed, rather than ALL, due to the the number of innocent human lives that would be lost in the process of handing over 'rights' to women.  It is wrong to punish this minority of individuals."

I knew it was hypothetical, I just found it wrong and funny that you're chosing a fetus over a woman.

"Good that you are at least willing to admit that.  I still fail to see what difference it makes whether that baby happens to be inside, or outside the womb, but OK."

It is known as a fetus until birth. After birth it is then a baby.

""So I guess to you women are nothing more but mindless human incubators,"

How did you arrive at *THIS* conclusion? I never said anything of the kind.  I have a mother, a sister, and female friends in my life whom I respect just as I do anyone else.
"

I got it from this: "Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

"LOL, you will even destroy the life of other humans to live if the woman had to endure 'lengthy travel' to an abortion clinic!  You must have quite low regard for human life."

Women in rural and suburban areas do have an undue burden on them finding a clinic early enough.

"The waiting periods were in place already.  If she waited long enough for a small waiting period to throw her over into the next trimester, and the baby comes alive in that period of time, that's tough shit.  If you waited that long, I blame you, period."

It's even harder for a minor to find a clinic, due to legal process.

"I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples."

A severe, abnormal fetus is quite different from a cripple. Are you willing to let a mother give birth to a baby that will die moments later or harm her health/life? That'll be horrible for her to experience.

"Thank you for admitting that you would remove the right to life of humans who have abnormalities."

Irrelevant. A fetus isn't like an adult whose crippled/abnormal. Unlike the adult, who's already here and living, the fetus has a great chance of dieing from an abnormality and harming the woman.

"Birth control is widely availible.  If it isn't, you shouldn't be having sex until you get your hands on some."

It isn't that widely available. It also has grown more expensive and not all health insurance companies offer coverage for it. People are still going to have sex despite lack of availability and cost, it's just the way they are. The government should be responsible enough not to hinder availability in the first place, otherwise, it contradicts what they're doing. There will be more abortions.

"Whether or not the republicans make birth control difficult to find or not is besides the point that human life should be defended by the government, period."

Umm..wrong.. They don't want abortions, but at the same time they are making contraceptives harder to obtain and more expensive..which is what causes unwanted pregnancies, and thus more abortions. They are defeating themselves.

"Employment should be entirely voluntary.  For someone who talks about liberty, freedom, and rights, to casually discuss forcing employers to hire mothers, is ridiculous to me.  Your ideas are absolutely inconsistent with freedom and liberty, and the foundation of America - freedom, liberty, and the right to life.  Employers have the freedom to hire or not hire whoever they want, for whatever reason they want.  This is as it should be."

I'm talking about the women whom are already in the workplace, then became pregnant and wanted to become mothers. Employers discriminate against them.

"My friend I dragged on my ship is parasitically eating the food I have on my ship, and shitting in my ship as well.  I guess I should have the freedom to throw him off into the deep sea."

Then again, your friend isn't syphoning your nutrients from your body, then later, shitting into the same tube leading into your body.

>>362
"I'm not a liberal, and I do not want abortion on demand."

"I got it from this: "Pro-lifers believe life begins at conception, by definition.  From this standpoint, banning abortion entirely is justified."

What you apparently failed to realize, is that I am not pro-life, and don't believe 'human life' begins at conception.  This was another hypothetical for you.  Supposing life did begin at conception, banning abortion entirely WOULD be justified.  You seem to have trouble grasping the meaning of hypothetical situations, since you applied this to me, even though I've already said this has nothing to do with my *actual* position on the abortion issue, since I *don't* happen to believe life begins at conception. 

Furthermore, being 'pro-life' does not mean that one thinks of women as 'mindless human incubators.'  How would you come to the conclusion that the notion that the human lives of unborn humans must be protected from attack and violation by individuals entails thinking of those individuals as mindless incubators? Women are human beings with minds like everyone else.  This does not mean that they should have the right to destroy unborn human life as they please.

"Women in rural and suburban areas do have an undue burden on them finding a clinic early enough."

How on earth would the fact that they have an 'undue burden' placed upon them justify the destruction of another *INNOCENT* human's life?

"It's even harder for a minor to find a clinic, due to legal process."

You miss the point.  If she waited for a long enough span of time for a simple waiting period to throw her into the next trimester, that's too bad.  That's the result of *her* action, and at this point, violating the rights of the now-alive human fetus to continue to live is ridiculous and sick at best.

"I see, so we should kill people who are *already alive* who have severe abnormalities.  You must love cripples."

"A severe, abnormal fetus is quite different from a cripple. Are you willing to let a mother give birth to a baby that will die moments later"

You never specified that it will die moments later.  If proven that it will die moments later, it may be justified to kill it in the most humane manner possible.  However, this situation is different from your 'abnormalities' justification.  Yes, it could be considered an 'abnormality' but many other things could be considered 'abnormalities' as well, in which the killing would not be justified. 

"Irrelevant."

Not irrelevant.  You just admitted that you would be fine with removing the right to live of humans with abnormalities.  This is very discrediting to you and your positions. 

"A fetus isn't like an adult whose crippled/abnormal."

It is technically a human life, after it has developed to a certain point.  Call it like it is.  You just supported the killing of 'abnormal' human lives. 

"Unlike the adult, who's already here and living, the fetus has a great chance of dieing from an abnormality and harming the woman."

That depends on the abnormality, and you didn't specify any specific kind of abnormalities, so as a general rule, you just said it was just fine to kill it if it had a given 'abnormality.'  From this, I could interpret it to mean practically anything.  Hell, for all I know, if it was born with only four fingers on a hand, you'd be fine with killing it too.  That's an 'abnormality'.

"It isn't that widely available."

More availible than abortions.

"It also has grown more expensive and not all health insurance companies offer coverage for it."

Yeah condoms and birth control pills are real pricey.  I feel for you.  *sarcasm*

"People are still going to have sex despite lack of availability and cost, it's just the way they are."

No it isn't.  People can refrain from having sex.  You seem to think people are in no control of their actions, where they put their dick, or whether or not they let someone else put a dick in their vagina, which is absolutely ridiculous.  Are you saying abstinence is impossible? I could stop having sex for a year and prove to you it isn't.

"The government should be responsible enough not to hinder availability in the first place, otherwise, it contradicts what they're doing."

Availibility of contraceptives? If this is what you are saying, I agree, it shouldn't be irresponsible enough to hinder availibility in the first place.  HOWEVER, the fact that it has, or did, is no justification for killing human lives.

"There will be more abortions."

Not if we regulate it.  There will be *less.*

"Umm..wrong.."

No, *right.*  Human life deserves to be protected, and the right to life is an inalienable right that isn't dependent upon whether or not people have access to condoms or not.

"They don't want abortions, but at the same time they are making contraceptives harder to obtain and more expensive..which is what causes unwanted pregnancies,"

No.  If you live in an area and you don't get contraceptives, and you have sex anyway, *YOU* are causing the unwanted pregnancy.  The fact is is that the other factor is already in play, and you are committing an action that you *know* will result in an unwanted pregnancy.  The blame for unwanted pregnancies is to be placed upon irresponsible people.

"and thus more abortions. They are defeating themselves."

If they made abortion illegal, that would be that, and people would be forced to become more responsible thanks to the law, just like people are forced to not murder people, thanks to the law.  It is a deterrant.  While it doesn't prevent ALL murders, it *contributes* to keeping people from just murdering on a whim.

"I'm talking about the women whom are already in the workplace, then became pregnant and wanted to become mothers. Employers discriminate against them."

And it is their right to hire, or fire anyone they want, for whatever reason they want.  Anything short of that is a violation of their right to do as they wish with their property - one of the most fundamental human rights of all.

"Then again, your friend isn't syphoning your nutrients from your body, then later, shitting into the same tube leading into your body."

Allright, hypothetically, if I shot him with a tranquilizer, and using some magic made our bodies connected, strengthened my heart using some kind of magic so that it would have the strength to pump blood throughout our now connected bodies, and removed his heart, so he depended upon my vital organs for life, should I have the right to then remove him, killing him in the process?

Abortion is very similar, except it is done without magic.  The fetus is there due to the actions committed by those who agreed to have sex.  The fetus, like my friend in the example above, had no choice whether or not to be put in the situation it is now in, but is now dependent upon the person he/she is dependent upon due to the actions committed by the aforementioned people, like my friend. 

In either instance, it would clearly be wrong to give the person at fault the right to essentially terminate the other life that is effected. 

Last time I checked, procreation is the basis, no the actual goal of the human psyche. In a materialistic, sexualized country like America, people are going to have sex, it is a CONSTANT, not a variable, that can only be tampered with slightly. Drugs are a constant caused by many factors, and so is sex. When the right makes birth control harder to get to and say how abstinence is the key or else there will be STDs and whatnot, they presume it will have a dettering effect. Well, virginity pledges, the crusade on drugs and the Death Penalty was supposed to have that too. That worked out just swell! All those people in Africa are doing MINSTREL dancing of moral joy now that organisations that provide birth control and abortions are off America's foreign aid list! Sex will always be there, and the right is, as usual, making the results of this constant more negative and then blames it on Hollywood, feminism, secularism, i.e. the people. Americans are very stubborn; they started drinking despite all the ensuing social and medical problems simply in order to spite the government during the prohibition. They aren't consciously giving the finger to the government while fucking, but I believe the same sub-conscious factor applies.
Also, the government can't protect a woman's liberty and the baby's life at the same time, and the women outnumber the babies, resulting in a utilitarian choice (kill one dude, nine walk away or my execution squad will kill all ten) that I have already made. There is no agreed limit to when life starts, considering the many many parameters biologists use to evaluate life. If a fetus lacks some or many organic and biochemical facilities, it can not be classified as HUMAN life, or even life at all and limiting abortions then would mean valuing a technical animal (also a potential human if you consider that even a cat has the same biochemical foundation as us) over a living human being who will be mistreated by employers and financially disrupted once the child is born. You do not have the expertise to say when HUMAN life is cast-iron, but this means that I have pushed down the limit for abortions - from the onset of personhood to the onset of HUMAN life. That backfired on you.
America is not ready for single mothers now, and the influx that would result of a nation-wide ban would harm the economy. I've proven that a ban of abortions raise crime, so I still have the utilitarian edge. Then there is the fact that SD has banned abortions ENTIRELY, a breach of liberty and an all-or-nothing choice that will only make me more convinced that adequately sensible and compromising people like Anonymous are a minority of his side. If a victory for the pro-lifers means a situation like that for all America's women, then I will resort to protesting, extremism and, eventually, direct lethal force. The possibility of a nation-wide ban would force me to use my armaments against anybody who works to make that a reality; it would be like fighting off an invading, foreign force.

>>364
"Last time I checked, procreation is the basis, no the actual goal of the human psyche. In a materialistic, sexualized country like America, people are going to have sex, it is a CONSTANT, not a variable, that can only be tampered with slightly."

Bullshit.  People can stop having sex if they want.  You act like people have no will power or ability to exercise restraint, which is a joke at best.

"When the right makes birth control harder to get to and say how abstinence is the key or else there will be STDs and whatnot, they presume it will have a dettering effect."

If you are responding to my post, and my argument, again, I disagree.  It is possible for people to show restraint.  **If you aren't responding to what I said earlier, kindly ignore this.**

"Well, virginity pledges, the crusade on drugs and the Death Penalty was supposed to have that too."

The crusade on drugs is supported by the dems as well.

"That worked out just swell! All those people in Africa are doing MINSTREL dancing of moral joy now that organisations that provide birth control and abortions are off America's foreign aid list!"

First of all, foreign aid in general sucks, so this is good.  Secondly, tax-funded abortions are not in any way morally sound or in accordance with the values of liberty, whether they occur here, or in some country receiving our foreign aid money. 

"Sex will always be there, and the right is, as usual, making the results of this constant more negative and then blames it on Hollywood, feminism, secularism, i.e. the people."

What the hell do you mean by 'sex is a constant'? Sex is not something that is unable to be stopped.  People COULD practice abstinence.

"Americans are very stubborn; they started drinking despite all the ensuing social and medical problems simply in order to spite the government during the prohibition."

This kind of thing makes me damn proud to be an american.

"Also, the government can't protect a woman's liberty and the baby's life at the same time, and the women outnumber the babies, resulting in a utilitarian choice"

Fuck utilitiarianism.  Sacrificing the rights of one group for the benefit of another group is not justified.  If it was, why would we as americans not take all of Bill Gates' money? It would be beneficial in a 'utilitarian' sense, no? We don't do it because it is -=wrong=-.  Humans aren't sacrificial animals whose rights are to be sacrificed for the community.

Also note:  the right to live is fundamental and inalienable.  The right of the women you describe is a right that pales in significance to the right to life.  If the right to life is jeopardized, all humanity suffers, including said women.

"If a fetus lacks some or many organic and biochemical facilities, it can not be classified as HUMAN life,"

It is 'human', and it is 'alive', thus it is a 'human-life'.

"or even life at all and limiting abortions then would mean valuing a technical animal (also a potential human if you consider that even a cat has the same biochemical foundation as us) over a living human being who will be mistreated by employers and financially disrupted once the child is born."

So because the woman will possibly suffer discrimination, we are going to give her the right to destroy human life?

"You do not have the expertise to say when HUMAN life is cast-iron, but this means that I have pushed down the limit for abortions - from the onset of personhood to the onset of HUMAN life. That backfired on you."

I don't see how.

"America is not ready for single mothers now, and the influx that would result of a nation-wide ban would harm the economy."

I don't see how.  Even if it did, this is redundant, since the human life has a right to continue to live, free from interference. 

"I've proven that a ban of abortions raise crime, so I still have the utilitarian edge."

Utilitarianism and the 'utilitiarian edge' is no excuse to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the few for the sake of the many. 

"and an all-or-nothing choice that will only make me more convinced that adequately sensible and compromising people like Anonymous are a minority of his side."

I'm not 'crompromising.'  Sensible, yes.  Compromising, no.  If I thought life began at conception, I would settle for nothing less than a full ban.  That's not saying I do think that, but I just want to let you know that 'compromise' is not something I'm willing to do if I know I'm right.  Moderation or supporting moderate views just on the grounds that they are moderate is stupid.  If done, you will invariably fuck yourself up somewhat.  Rather, you should support ideas based on their merit, not whether or not they are 'moderate' or involve 'compromise'.

>>364
Seconded.

>>365
You assume that anyone giving birth will provide a life for the fetus. Many in say, Africa, cannot, assuming both mother and child survive birth. Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide. Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away. You really think the moral thing to do is give her a speach and prayer and leave it at that?
What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?
That being said, I would agree that late-term abortions in developed nations are likely happening on the whims of people who had "an accident" that they want to cover up, which is abhorrent.

As for sex, yes people can show restraint. Access to birth control (pill/shots/condoms) should not be denied anyone, as unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, since those who don't want or can't afford children likely make terrible parents, and adoption is overrated anyways: there is already a massive backlog that would take years to dissipitate even if humans stopped giving birht all together.

>>365 "Secondly, tax-funded abortions are not in any way morally sound or in accordance with the values of liberty, whether they occur here, or in some country receiving our foreign aid money." You are of course speaking of the unfathomable evil of making people pay for what they believe is immoral. If pro-lifers don't want tax-funded abortions because some of those abortions may be unethical, then I don't want to pay taxes at all because some of the money will be used on the crusade on drugs or the war on bad.
"People COULD practice abstinence." But they DON'T despite every effort to make them!
"This kind of thing makes me damn proud to be an american." Fuck yes, I consider this to be one of the best facets of the American mindset.
"Fuck utilitiarianism.  Sacrificing the rights of one group for the benefit of another group is not justified." Here, we have to make a utilitarian choice, since we can't eat the cake and have it too.
"If it was, why would we as americans not take all of Bill Gates' money?" Not comporting with the situation. In the real world, we *can't* have fetal rights and women's rights at the same time, while in your overused analogy taking Bill's money would require the removal of his birthright. The number of fertile women in America outnumber the number of fetuses who have passed a certain limit (which is still not set adequately). Since not every fertile woman in America is pregnant at any one time, the women always outnumber the fetuses who can conceivably be considered humans with unique lives. Even if they all were pregnant a number of fetuses would not be humans, and since we can't give group A AND group B their complete rights at the same time, we have to go with the majority.
"It is 'human', and it is 'alive', thus it is a 'human-life'. Those apostrophes are more important than you think, bub. Biologically, not every diploid is human life.
"The right of the women you describe is a right that pales in significance to the right to life." Denying abortion from women just because some abortions will take place once the foetus is human life is like making appendix removal illegal. Collective punishment.
"So because the woman will possibly suffer discrimination, we are going to give her the right to destroy human life?" If a society can not allow a woman to become a mother without harming her liberties, it does not have the right to force her to become a mother. And even if adoptions is a good option labor is *intensely* painful and hormonally upsetting.
"I don't see how." You said personhood wasn't the first prerequisite for human life, and then I explained that now the prerequisites were biological. Since humans breathe oxygen and children do not do that until nativity, fetuses are not human life until they are outside.
"Utilitarianism and the 'utilitiarian edge' is no excuse to sacrifice the rights and liberties of the few for the sake of the many." Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue. If you have to choose between the rights of Group A and Group B, and Group A always will outnumber Group B, what do you choose?
"I'm not 'crompromising.'  Sensible, yes.  Compromising, no.  If I thought life began at conception, I would settle for nothing less than a full ban.  That's not saying I do think that, but I just want to let you know that 'compromise' is not something I'm willing to do if I know I'm right.  Moderation or supporting moderate views just on the grounds that they are moderate is stupid.  If done, you will invariably fuck yourself up somewhat.  Rather, you should support ideas based on their merit, not whether or not they are 'moderate' or involve 'compromise'." I have not promoted a centrist stance, and I guess compromising was a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, the state-wide ban put through in SD has proven to me that I am up against people that make you look like Janet Reno.

>>368
Makes absolute sense. A complete riposte to >>365 . Well done. And in the language of the Internet..ARSE-FUCKING PWNT LOLOL.

>>369 It's not a complete fisking. Far from it, in fact. This issue is still open. Thank you a lot though.

>>367
"You assume that anyone giving birth will provide a life for the fetus."

The parents/mother are to be held responsible here.  If they abandon their child or something, jail them for child abuse, and locate a foster home, adoption center, ophanage, or something similar.  Those who abandoned the child can be put to work and their earnings can be sent to care for the child.  Problem solved.

"Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide."

See above.  If they weren't ready to have children, they should have taken the steps necessary to prevent production of children needing to be cared for.  Hold them accountable. 

"Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away."

We are talking about the USA, and american laws, or at least I was.  The USA isn't a 'third world shithole' and that kind of behavior is not accepted here, so this is redundant.

"You really think the moral thing to do is give her a speach and prayer and leave it at that?"

See above.

"What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?"

I am not talking about third world nations and their laws.  I am talking about the United States of America and its laws.  We are far, far from a 'third world nation.'

"That being said, I would agree that late-term abortions in developed nations are likely happening on the whims of people who had "an accident" that they want to cover up, which is abhorrent."

We see eye to eye on this then.

"As for sex, yes people can show restraint. Access to birth control (pill/shots/condoms) should not be denied anyone,"

I agree.

"as unwanted pregnancies should be avoided, since those who don't want or can't afford children likely make terrible parents,"

I agree.

"and adoption is overrated anyways: there is already a massive backlog that would take years to dissipitate even if humans stopped giving birht all together."

I'm not quite sure what you are saying, and I don't think adoption is the sole solution to everything, but there are lots of willing and able parents who will take foster children.  As a libertarian-conservative, in order to provide more people able to care for the unaborted children, there would be more homes availible for non-aborted children if homosexuals were allowed to adopt children, and this is a freedom I wholeheartedly support.  The child needs loving parents, and I believe that this need can be fullfilled by a homosexual just as well as by a heterosexual.

>>368
"You are of course speaking of the unfathomable evil of making people pay for what they believe is immoral. If pro-lifers don't want tax-funded abortions because some of those abortions may be unethical, then I don't want to pay taxes at all because some of the money will be used on the crusade on drugs or the war on bad."

Then support the libertarian party, not the liberals.  The liberals won't end the War on Drugs for you, and will then throw your ass in jail for not paying your taxes down to the last penny, and will then proceed to take away everyones gun rights so if they feel like violating everyone's rights, and it comes down to a tyranny somewhere down the road, there's nothing you or anyone else could do about it anyway.

"But they DON'T despite every effort to make them!"

Right.  So I blame them.  They made the choice not to take the right action, so they should be held accountable for the same set of reasons a murderer should be held accountable for not making the right choices.

"Here, we have to make a utilitarian choice, since we can't eat the cake and have it too."

I disagree.  The rights of a few humans to their lives outweigh the 'rights' of a majority of women to an abortion.  One freedom is obviously of far greater importance, even if its instances are much less significant in number. 

"In the real world, we *can't* have fetal rights and women's rights at the same time,"

To a reasonable degree we can.  Women have equal rights.  They have the right to decide to have sex or not, to use contraceptives or not, or in general to do things or not.  The situation is entirely avoidable, and I don't see how their rights are being infringed in any significant or noteworthy way, especially in comparison to the infringements (albeit few) of the right to live.

"while in your overused analogy taking Bill's money would require the removal of his birthright."

Right.  And this relates to the discussion because you are talking about just sacrificing the lives of a few humans for the sake of a majority of women.  If we were to impliment your morality on a consistent basis it would lead us to the conclusion that we should loot Bill Gates' property, and take his money for the benefits of a greater number of people.  We don't do this because human beings aren't sacrificial animals to be sacrificed in the name of the benefits of the majority.  Similarly, human lives are not to be sacrificed for the sake of a far less important freedom of a given group, even if that group is far greater in number.

"The number of fertile women in America outnumber the number of fetuses who have passed a certain limit (which is still not set adequately)."

See comments above.

"Since not every fertile woman in America is pregnant at any one time, the women always outnumber the fetuses who can conceivably be considered humans with unique lives."

Again, see above.

"Even if they all were pregnant a number of fetuses would not be humans, and since we can't give group A AND group B their complete rights at the same time, we have to go with the majority."

See above.

"Biologically, not every diploid is human life."

I'm not trying to make that claim.  There's more to 'life' if you ask me than a complete set of chromosomes, but that isn't to say that sperm, eggs, skin cells, or any other of these kinds of things are to be considered human lives.  As I said - that isn't the *only* thing.  There are other things that I take into consideration as well.

"Denying abortion from women just because some abortions will take place once the foetus is human life is like making appendix removal illegal. Collective punishment."

Right, and is not just.  But neither is denying all humans the right to live for the sake of one group if one injustice is worse, which would also qualify as collective punishment.  The argument is which is worse - and I think that denying the right to life is a worse thing than to deny abortion, even if those effected would be of a smaller group.  One right is more important, and that is life. 

"If a society can not allow a woman to become a mother without harming her liberties, it does not have the right to force her to become a mother."

And if society cannot give women the right to have abortions without preventing destruction of legitimate human life, it does not have the right to give her abortions.  As said before and above - this is a degree of judgement.  The question is which injustice is worse, and I firmly agree that injustice against life is the worse of the two.

"And even if adoptions is a good option labor is *intensely* painful and hormonally upsetting."

Right, but the human fetus is not in its situation due to its own choice - the woman is.

"You said personhood wasn't the first prerequisite for human life, and then I explained that now the prerequisites were biological."

If it is the example I'm thinking of, I only disagreed with it in the context in which it was used, as I define 'personhood' a little differently.

"Since humans breathe oxygen and children do not do that until nativity, fetuses are not human life until they are outside."

And here I thought we had finally come to agreement... more or less.  I don't think 'humans' always breathe oxygen, as I think the unborn can be considered 'human' as well, depending on how late in development it is.  Simply breathing does not make one human, in my opinion, and supposing one could live without breathing somehow, it wouldn't make his life significantly less 'human' in nature to me.

"Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue."

Yes it was.

"If you have to choose between the rights of Group A and Group B, and Group A always will outnumber Group B, what do you choose?"

That depends on the significance of the rights to be abused.  Clearly, some rights are more important than others, and I have a rather high opinion of the right to life.

"I have not promoted a centrist stance, and I guess compromising was a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, the state-wide ban put through in SD has proven to me that I am up against people that make you look like Janet Reno."

Did you mean this to be derogatory to me? Janet Reno was a bitch in my opinion, but maybe you don't know of her what I do.

Just when I thought this thread was dead and buried. Oh well, here we go again! :D

>>368
Win

>>371
Lose

I'll scratch at this when I get back from work and taking a break afterwards. -yawns and stretches-

This thread is so extremely boring I might have to shoot myself in the face.

>>372

">>368
Win

>>371
Lose"

Fails for not explaining why.

"Just when I thought this thread was dead and buried. Oh well, here we go again! :D"

Nope, had an internet outage.  I will fight this one out until my hands are cracked and bloody if necessary.

Drug companies making the pills ... run by men. Insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills ... run by men. The majority of lawmakers trying to outlaw abortion and other birth control options ... men. The major heads of the religious right funding these politicians ... men. Sex of the shooters that have killed abortion docs and/or bombed their clinics ... men. The heads of drugstores and the majority of pharmacists refusing to fill BC scripts and morning after scripts ... men. As for the male birth control pill in testing right now ... I have heard of it actually. I also have seen the polls that say most men don't want to take a pill (lazy bastards), and I find it ironic that the length of time between development of a female pill and a male pill is almost 50 years. Why did it take so long? They developed a pill to help men get it up before they developed one to help them control what was coming out of it ... they put the cart before the horse don'cha think?

>>375
"Drug companies making the pills ... run by men."

So? You think men don't have the right to run drug companies? What's the deal?

"Insurance companies covering Viagra but not birth control pills ... run by men."

So? The men who own those companies have the right to run them any way they please.

"The majority of lawmakers trying to outlaw abortion and other birth control options ... men."

Abortion shouldn't be considered a 'birth control option.' Taking the life of another human being for the sake of covering your own butt for irresponsible actions you engaged in is morally dubious at best.  The laws we have on the books right now concerning abortion are, if anything, not tight enough.

"The major heads of the religious right funding these politicians ... men."

So? They have the right to fund and support whatever politicians they like, just like you.  There's nothing wrong with this.

"Sex of the shooters that have killed abortion docs and/or bombed their clinics ... men."

So? What now, you think all men are criminals?

"The heads of drugstores and the majority of pharmacists refusing to fill BC scripts and morning after scripts ... men."

So? They have a right to not do business with you if they want.

"As for the male birth control pill in testing right now ... I have heard of it actually. I also have seen the polls that say most men don't want to take a pill (lazy bastards),"

So what? They don't have to if they don't want to. 

"and I find it ironic that the length of time between development of a female pill and a male pill is almost 50 years."

So? Oh shit, I feel another feminazi tirade coming on.

"Why did it take so long? They developed a pill to help men get it up before they developed one to help them control what was coming out of it ... they put the cart before the horse don'cha think?"

Assuming it was the man's responsibility to keep women from becoming pregnant, yeah. *laugh*

"Assuming it was the man's responsibility to keep women from becoming pregnant, yeah. *laugh*"

He does have a point. Instead of focusing on women all the time, what about the men? It would be his responsiblity if he didn't want to become a father.

>>374
"">>368
Win

>>371
Lose"

Fails for not explaining why.
"

Notice that I said: "I'll scratch at this when I get back from work and taking a break afterwards. -yawns and stretches-" I was gonna explain after I have returned.

You fail due to lack of reading ahead.

"So? What now, you think all men are criminals?"
Nah I dun. Butt hroughout history, all of the major screwups have been done from men.

Ahem. -cracks knuckles-  :D

>>368
If I was to state what I would all say about this, it would turn out just like Xel's. He took pretty much the words out of my mouth, so I second this.

>>371
"The parents/mother are to be held responsible here.  If they abandon their child or something, jail them for child abuse, and locate a foster home, adoption center, ophanage, or something similar.  Those who abandoned the child can be put to work and their earnings can be sent to care for the child.  Problem solved"

You are focusing on punishment instead of preventive measures, you are victimizing the parents as well. We need to focus more on preventive measures that would dwindle this down.

""Pregnancy is not always something that happens to healthy people who can provide."

See above.  If they weren't ready to have children, they should have taken the steps necessary to prevent production of children needing to be cared for.  Hold them accountable."

That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave.

""Nor does it always happen to girls/women who have developed physically that EITHER one of them could survive. Plenty of third world shit-holes out there where a guy can rape an 11 year old and just walk away."

We are talking about the USA, and american laws, or at least I was.  The USA isn't a 'third world shithole' and that kind of behavior is not accepted here, so this is redundant."

In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives, this seriously puts a dent in the Repubs' "abstinence-only" policy, children are still gonna have sex, it's a constant, not a variable. What needs to be augmented is comprehensive sex-ed.

""What about the kids who get to look forward to a brief life of scavenging for rats and flies? Would they necessarily thank you for that, especially since every new mouth to feed puts a strain on the others that is likely greater than the sum of its parts?"

I am not talking about third world nations and their laws.  I am talking about the United States of America and its laws.  We are far, far from a 'third world nation.'"

Believe it or not, there are some children in this nation whom scavenge in trash bins and what-not.

"Right.  So I blame them.  They made the choice not to take the right action, so they should be held accountable for the same set of reasons a murderer should be held accountable for not making the right choices."

Again, sex is a constant. What needs to be provided is comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, this would put a large dent in the number of abortions.

"I disagree.  The rights of a few humans to their lives outweigh the 'rights' of a majority of women to an abortion.  One freedom is obviously of far greater importance, even if its instances are much less significant in number."

The woman's right to her life outweighs the fetus'. The government doesn't just protect life, liberty, and property, but also the pursuit of happiness. "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In fact, property isn't even mentioned there. The woman has a right to pursue happiness, and it is the government's job to protect that right as well. (Before you start assuming any shit, no, I'm not advocating abortion on a whim blah blah blah.)

"If we were to impliment your morality on a consistent basis it would lead us to the conclusion that we should loot Bill Gates' property, and take his money for the benefits of a greater number of people."

That analogy really sucks. Bill Gates isn't a potential fetus with no concious.

"Right, and is not just.  But neither is denying all humans the right to live for the sake of one group if one injustice is worse, which would also qualify as collective punishment.  The argument is which is worse - and I think that denying the right to life is a worse thing than to deny abortion, even if those effected would be of a smaller group.  One right is more important, and that is life."

Yeup, the woman's right to her life and pursuit of happiness must be protected.

"Right, but the human fetus is not in its situation due to its own choice - the woman is."

The woman didn't force implantation. It's the zygote/blastocyst's fault for hijacking another person's body without her permission.

""Your Gates analogy was not equitable to the issue."

Yes it was.
"
No it wasn't. :D

>>380 B-b-b-b-b-b-ut HILARY!!!!

>>381
LOL. :D

>>380

"If I was to state what I would all say about this, it would turn out just like Xel's. He took pretty much the words out of my mouth, so I second this."

Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist.

"You are focusing on punishment instead of preventive measures,"

No, I am focusing on restitution, which is not punishment.  Yes, people would be deterred from committing this crime due to the fact that they would likely rather be free and support their children normally than support them through forced work from a prison cell, but the main point behind this idea is that we have an alternative solution to the typical right-wing solution to crime.  In this solution, we punish the offender, while simultaneously fixing the problem.  I see nothing wrong with this approach.  Following up thereafter with making contraceptives more prevalent and availible, while tightening up on law enforcement would give a final solution to this difficult problem.

 you are victimizing the parents as well. We need to focus more on preventive measures that would dwindle this down.

"That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave."

Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'

"In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"

You fail.  Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary.  Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different.  What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about.  We are talking about the United States.  We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner.

"this seriously puts a dent in the Repubs' "abstinence-only" policy, children are still gonna have sex,"

That is their fault then.  Too bad.

"it's a constant, not a variable. What needs to be augmented is comprehensive sex-ed."

People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable.  They are free to have sex or not if they choose.  However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable.

"Believe it or not, there are some children in this nation whom scavenge in trash bins and what-not."

Sure.  I probly did my share of playing around when I was a child, and there are probly many more opportunities to do this as a child in cities.  Redundant anyways. 

"Again, sex is a constant."

No it isn't.  People have the choice to engage in this activity or not.  Are you saying it is impossible to abstain? That's real funny.  What do you think ugly people do if nobody will have sex with them? People can obviously hold themselves back.

"What needs to be provided is comprehensive sex-ed and contraceptives, this would put a large dent in the number of abortions."

Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do.

"The woman's right to her life outweighs the fetus'."

This wasn't what was being discussed.  You fail.

"The government doesn't just protect life, liberty, and property, but also the pursuit of happiness."

Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life? The unborn didn't put themselves in the situation they are in, they obviously cannot be held accountable.  On the other hand, those who engaged in sex while unprepared to deal with the consequences did, and can.


 "...that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." In fact, property isn't even mentioned there."

Fails for both redundancy, and innacuracy: 
http://lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr10.html

You might find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Also see 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights: 
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

"The woman has a right to pursue happiness, and it is the government's job to protect that right as well."

Right.  She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others.  Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand.

"That analogy really sucks."

No it doesn't.

"Bill Gates isn't a potential fetus with no concious."

Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives! We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.' As we know, it is the proper function of a good government to defend said life.  We have the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, and it is the proper function of good government to protect and defend these rights from infringement by both other individuals, and other governments.

"Yeup, the woman's right to her life and pursuit of happiness must be protected."

Have you even been following along? The woman does indeed have a right to pursue happiness.. as long as in doing so she doesn't infringe on other's right to live, or their right to pursue happiness as well.  Late term abortions should obviously be banned due to the fact that they do indeed infringe upon these.   

"The woman didn't force implantation. It's the zygote/blastocyst's fault for hijacking another person's body without her permission."

Is this sarcasm? I kinda laughed when I read this.  It is clearly the fault of those engaging in sex.

"No it wasn't. :D"

Yes it was.  See above.

>>381
But nothing.  Hillary sucks, and even those who are pro-life and democrats know that, including the many feminists I happen to know.  If you are going to back Hillary (supposing she runs in 08), good luck, I doubt you win. 

>>383
"Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life? The unborn didn't put themselves in the situation they are in, they obviously cannot be held accountable.  On the other hand, those who engaged in sex while unprepared to deal with the consequences did, and can."

LOL, the left isn't real into holding people accountable for their actions, and for that matter, they don't really give a shit if a few people get knocked off in their quest to promote organized activity on behalf of women's 'interests.'

The social and economic programs of the left are all pretty much designed to allow massive evasion of responsibility.

>>379  *Nearly* everything good has come from men as well.

"Yes, because you are biased in favor of women.. a typical radical feminist."

I am? I never took notice. :3 You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind. Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this.

"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"

The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is. The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience. There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes. Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant. "Drop dead I say!"

""In America, you have minors ages 11-13 becoming pregnant as well which may jeapordize their health/lives,"

You fail.  Your example entailed rape, which was not voluntary.  Now what you are talking about in the United States is voluntary sex, which is entirely different.  What goes on in other countries isn't what I'm talking about.  We are talking about the United States.  We aren't talking about rape, we are talking about irresponsible people who have consensual sex in a particularly irresponsible manner."

I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted.

"People can show restraint, it is not a constant, it is a variable.  They are free to have sex or not if they choose.  However, if they do, and they do so in an irresponsible manner, they should be held accountable."

You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen.

"Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."

Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say.

"This wasn't what was being discussed.  You fail."

Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah.

"Right.  Two things to consider.  What about the happiness of the unborn? Further, what of their right to life?"

The unborn isn't concious, and thus, doesn't have those feelings. Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness. If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated.

"http://lexrex.com/informed/foundingdocuments/declaration.htm";

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"

I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence.

"Right.  She has the right to pursue happiness, as long as this is not at the expense of others.  Basic thoughts on liberty that I guess you missed or failed to understand."

Right. But a fetus isn't a person.

"Ah! But we are talking about fetuses that are late enough in development to be considered human lives!"

Assuming late in the seventh month and to term, then they may have a fragment of concious, a preresiquite for being a human 'being'. So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being. But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides. >>276 >>277 Forced c-sections, and other dilemmas. In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation.

Here's an exerpt:

"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid]. Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities.

One prime example was a good friend of mine who was pregnant -- and dearly wanted to have a baby -- and in the third trimester it was discovered that her future child had developed without a full spinal cord, so that the baby would die at birth. So not to undergo the agony of such a situation she had a late term "partial-birth" abortion. Unfortunately, the state of Florida where she lived prohibited such abortions, so she had to fly across the country at great expense -- and much harassment by idiotic "pro-lifers" -- to have the abortion."

"We aren't talking about a 'potential fetus.'"

A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me.

""No it wasn't. :D"

Yes it was.  See above.
"
No it wasn't! :D

Hmm..

Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights. A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder.

This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts. The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal.

In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities. The potential of my financial success and making billions of dollars does not create the actuality of my purchase of Microsoft today. Likewise, the possession of a gun and an index finger to pull its trigger with which to potentially shoot my neighbor does not actually make me a murderer. The potential of my death does not permit my husband to now declare himself an actual widow and our daughter (if we had one) fatherless. Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications.

Another flaw with the anti-abortionist view is the failure to acknowledge the proper metaphysical relationship between mother and the unborn fetus. The fetus is physically within the mother and connected to her via the placenta and umbilical chord. It is directly physically dependent on the mother for all of its life sustaining needs-oxygen, energy and safety from the external environment. The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage, something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights.

Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant, an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine, a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face.

Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life. Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal." The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights. In other words, man has rights by virtue of "rational living entity," not by virtue of "living entity."

Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations. The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense, by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights. In other words, if you ate steak and potatoes yesterday you are a co-conspirator in murder and a cannibal.

The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will). The concept of individual rights can therefore only be properly understood in the context of a rational independent entity, not in the context of a living thing with rudimentary sensations.

The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights. The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied.

>>386 I approve, not that my approval is of objective value for anyone. Anyway, I want to supplement by saying that until a case for martial law, aka an extreme contingency can be proven, no human right can be valued over another - they are all prerequisites of another, and the denial of one for any individual is an attack for all her landspeople. Now, a woman's state as a human is a fact, while not all foetuses/embryos/cancers/what-EVUUURRRRs are humans. At any given time, there will be more women than foetuses, and we can't protect the rights of both nor can ve value one right over the other (there is no adequate human life without control of one's body). So we make a utilitarian choice - because we have to. Robbing Gates is also a utilitarian per se (but this would not be a choice forced on us), but because we don't *have* to make a choice between *his* birthright OR the birthright of *two or more* humans, we have to protect his birthright first and foremost. Your analogy just is not comporting with the choice we have to make here.

>>386
"I am? I never took notice."

Feminists don't generally tend to.

"You let your flawed judgement of me cloud your mind."

ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed. 

"Xel provides key facts, statistics, data, and links to these to support his claims. So I side with this."

Xel provides a utilitarian 'argument' for a hypothetical situation.  I guess you didn't notice, but as far as public policy goes, we came to some common ground.  You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is.  Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'.

"Erm? Assuming they put their babies at risk in this act of 'bravery', I don't think they are 'brave' so much as they are 'irresponsible.'"

"The 'babies' aren't at risk, only the mother is."

Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies.  If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this.

"The mother is putting her life/health in jeapordy for the sake of having a child out of good conscience."

I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL.

"There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes."

That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk.

"Hmm, you seem to want to punish mothers with ailments when they are pregnant."

I don't know where you get this idea.

"I did say "America", and those 11-13 year olds are having consensual sex without having idea what it's all about and without the ammo to protect themselves. You are quite blind-sighted."

I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby.  If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision.

"You are living in a fantasy world, that isn't ever going to happen."

I guess you missed my point.  The decision to have sex or not is theirs to make, and is entirely voluntary.  Any consequences of this decision should be theirs to deal with, just like with other normal situations.  If I spend all my money in a particularly irresponsible manner, that was my decision, and I must then bear the consequences for doing this.  This is just.

The argument that people are physically incapable from abstaining or holding themselves back from having sex is ridiculous as well.  Many people can and do. 

"Sure.  You can pay for it though, keep your fingers out of my wallet.  Tightening up our laws and holding those responsible accountable would be a great addon, and this is something the left (and you) don't seem to be willing to do."

"Hmm, both sides want the number of abortions to decline..but yet, your side (neo-cons/conservatives/Repubs) aren't willing to do anything about it for the sake of losing money. So they shouldn't really have any say."

First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.'  If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible.  Now, they must deal with the consequences.  I have no responsibility to deal with them for them.  Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not.

"Wrong, wrong. Blah blah blah."

No, I'm right.  We weren't discussing whether or not the fetus' life outweights the life of the mother in importance, we were discussing a hypothetical situation, and in said situation, this question is moot anyways due to other facts. 

"The unborn isn't concious,"

Consciousness begins before birth.  You fail.  Even Xel knows this.

"Futher, their right-to-life doesn't supersede that of the woman's, along with her happiness."

The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life.  Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.  Even Xel agrees with me here.

"If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.'  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past.

"I believe I was right in the Declaration of Independence."

I don't believe I was talking about the Declaration of Independence.

"Right. But a fetus isn't a person."

Depends on how late in development it is. 

"a preresiquite for being a human 'being'."

If they are old enough to be consider 'human life,' they are to have government protection in my book.  This is the proper function of government anyway - defending human life and the right to it, among other things.

"So, they may be protected, but not at the expense of the woman's health/life/well-being."

Interesting.  That's pretty different from what you've been saying earlier.  Not saying I agree fully, but yeah. 

"But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."

*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?

"In fact, abortions during this stage are extremely rare, < 1%. So it doesn't need regulation."

Just because they are relatively small in number, does not mean that they do not deserve protection.  I stand firm here, and won't budge.  The right to life is not something to be eroded so carelessly, simply based on the fact that it isn't eroded or infringed often enough.

Here's an exerpt:

"Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed after 20 weeks, and they are extremely rare after 26 weeks of pregnancy" [Ibid].

1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year.  While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of.  This is an annual number... 15,500/yr  is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life.

"Typically abortions provided in the third trimester are limited to cases of severe fetal abnormalities."

'Typically' isn't good enough. 

"A fetus is a potential life. It is not a human being like you or me."

Even Xel agrees that depends on how late in development it is.

"No it wasn't! :D"

You fail to explain why it wasn't.

Hmm..

"Anti-abortionists often claim that the fetus is a human being and, although within and part of the mother, it has individual rights."

To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is.  Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception.  That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human.

"A consistent application of this view essentially makes the act of abortion an act of murder."

Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage.  I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such.

"This view of the unborn fetus fails to make two vital distinctions-the metaphysical difference between the actual and the potential and between an entity and its parts."

How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.   

"The anti-abortionist position also fails to recognize that human beings are granted rights qua man's status as a rational animal, not qua animal."

Oh god, I sense a Randroid! Anyhow, even if on a technicality, it is again the proper function of government, and I stand by that firmly.  The democrats are wrong on abortion.

"In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities."

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists.  You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with.  Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail.  If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins.  The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless.

"Individual rights should not and cannot be granted to potentialities because they are metaphysically distinct from actualities. The potential and actual therefore have distinct moral and political implications."

Nobody is talking about granting individual rights to potentialities... or at least I'm not.

"The relationship between mother and fetus is not that of two distinct human entities, but rather that of an independent human being (the mother) with rights and a dependent physical appendage,"

Your opinion.

"something that is physically within and part of the mother and therefore cannot have individual rights."

I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights.  Life begins before birth.

"Individual rights cannot be granted to the parts of human entities"

When said entity can be called a human life, I'm all for granting it protection.

"-to do so would make a surgeon a murderer when he removes a healthy kidney from a patient for an organ transplant,"

Assuming you thought a kidney was human life, yes.  I don't.  Not in the sense that late-term fetuses are, anyhow.

"an internist a murderer when he poisons a tapeworm to achieve its removal from a patient's intestine,"

I've never heard such ridiculous garbage in my life.  There is a huge difference between late-term human fetuses and tapeworms.

"a dermatologist a killer when he removes a mole from a patient's face."

More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles. 

"Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder.

"Even if the first premise of this argument is granted (the fetus is a living organism that moves and senses), man has individual rights qua "rational animal", not qua "animal."

It is genetically human in nature.  Science trumps Randian philosophy, sorry. 

"The essential distinction between man and all other animals is his rational faculty and it is this quality which confers political rights."

I disagree with the last statement.  If it is genetically 'human,' is conscious, or is able to feel and is capable of sensation, it should be protected.

"Most (if not all) animals move and have sensations."

And are not human.

"The view that the unborn fetus has rights because of its ability to move and sense,"

I am not saying that it is due to the fact that they can move and sense, I am saying it is due to the fact that they are 'human,' and can move and sense.

"by logical extension, is tantamount to arguing that all animals (and some plants) have rights."

Irrelevant due to the above.  I am not arguing that it is solely because of being able to move and sense that they have rights.  It is due to the fact that they are 'human' and can move and sense that they have rights, so your 'logical extension' is redundant.

"The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."

OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..!  Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious.  I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next.  Funny stuff.

"The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that.

"The act of birth enables the proper context in which individual rights can be properly understood and rationally applied."

There is nothing that I can see that goes along with the simple act of being born that brings about 'life' as I see it, and moreover, science shows us that these things actually surface *before* birth.

>>388 I may recognize the humanity of the foetuseseses, but since the women who will be denied complete control of their bodies will always be greater than the number of saved foetuseses, and so few foetuses have a *human* mind at the time of abortion (humanity only exists in cerebral materia), I will always be on Kumori's side even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking). If we can then use the flesh and stem cells for something, why not?

>>389
"but since the women who will be denied complete control of their bodies will always be greater than the number of saved foetuseses, and so few foetuses have a *human* mind at the time of abortion (humanity only exists in cerebral materia), I will always be on Kumori's side even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking)."

Kumori and I were arguing about the *hypothetical scenario* thought up by you god knows how many pages ago.  Kumori falsely interpreted my comments about said scenario into meaning what I actually thought of the abortion issue, and what should be done in actual politics today. 

Kumori then persisted in bitching about this, claiming my stand on abortion was wrong, regardless of the fact that we were discussing a *hypothetical scenario*. 

Now again, about your argument here.  You are saying that the women who have rights being sacrificed are greater in number than the fetuses who are being killed, would then justify allowing all abortions. 

I am saying that certain rights are more important than others - note that I support GWB over John Kerry.  John Kerry will take care of more civil rights than I cherish than Bush, but Bush will take care of what I consider the more important civil right - the 2nd amendment. 

Life is *very* high ranked in the list of rights, imo, and to infringe upon *it* is an atrocity of far greater proportion than giving a minor infringement upon the freedom of action of a group of people (even if there is far more of them) than the minority who is losing their right to life.

I strongly believe in your hypothetical situation that it is not the *number* of rights to be considered, but the *significance* of the rights to be considered. Right to Life > right to kill embryos. 

"If we can then use the flesh and stem cells for something, why not?"

Ha.  Use them for what? Government funded research?

......



"even if her argumentation is not always great (look who's talking)"

If my argumentation is wrong, prove it.

"If my argumentation is wrong, prove it." If my argumentation is wrong, prove it. Once again, all rights are prerequisites of another, a diamond grid, unless the nation is endangered.

>388
"You are the only one left whining over not having unlimmited abortion rights, whenever you want, no matter how old the fetus is."

Please don't make me laugh. That's not what I'm advocating. No need to stoop down to a personal level with me.

"Even Xel doesn't think you should be allowed to abort whenever you please after the fetus reaches the age at which it could be considered a 'human life'."

Uhhh okay... I dunno what gives you the idea that I'm advocating abortions on a whim, unless you're just venting some steam out on me. If you are, please direct it somewhere else. Xel and I see eye-to-eye here.

"ASIDE from the assumption you are a liberal, I don't think my judgement of you is flawed."

I consider myself a libertarian/utilitarian. On another note..what does it matter what a person is? If the person is on a side that you don't like does that make what they invalid to you? You're being quite a Collectivist.

*sigh* Assumptions assumptions...

"Unhealthy people who can't provide shouldn't be having babies.  If they are, and they were knowingly unhealthy and unable to provide, and they decided to try and have a baby anyhow, I think this is irresponsible to say the least, and the developing life within them could possibly be put into jeopardy by this."

Those said people are also the ones generally able to provide for their offspring. No use jeaopardizing your health for something that you can't provide for in the end.

"I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL."

See above.

"That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk."

Again, see above.

"I think it is common enough knowledge that the act of having sex produces a baby.  If they are going to fuck around and take risks with something this potentially life changing, oh well, that's their decision."

It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age.

"First off, I'm not a 'neo-con.'  If I don't feed a bum, am I then responsible for him trying to mug me, and should I have to put up with it? The bum, like the other irresponsible parties we are talking about, took certain actions that were irresponsible.  Now, they must deal with the consequences.  I have no responsibility to deal with them for them.  Anyhow, this really has nothing to do with whether or not the government should defend human life or not."

If I saw a bum I'd probably just buy him a load of bread out of good thought since I'm a nice person. Show some compassion. :/

""The unborn isn't concious,"

Consciousness begins before birth.  You fail.  Even Xel knows this."

Even I know that as well, I was speaking in the matter of more of a conscience.

"The woman's right to pursue happiness is not allowed to infringe upon their right to life.  Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.  Even Xel agrees with me here."

So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going. Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy, statistical analysises prove that late abortions are done for the reasons I mentioned beforehand. (Stop holding Xel's hand, geez.) Xel agrees with me here. :3 -holds his hand- <3

""If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

I see, so due to the fact that you are the authority on what people have the right to live or not due to physical conditions they have, they 'should be terminated.'  I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you'd allow an abortion if the baby was missing a pinky finger, based on the attitudes you've shown me in the past."

Now you are just being a spiteful ignoramous. Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.. I guess you'll let mothers whose fetuses are diagnosed with severe malformation watch their babies die in front of their eyes shortly after birth, or let them give birth to a stillborn. Congrats. -claps- You really gotta stop being prejudice against me.

""But if fetuses in that stage of pregnancy are to be protected, it'll cause problems for both sides."

*Both* sides? How does this harm the fetus, if that was what you were implying?"

It'll cause problems for both pro-choice and pro-life sides. One scenario.. Assuming that fetuses feel pain during the birthing process from being squeezed through tight vaginas, it'll make forced c-sections more widespread. It'll condone the evisceration of pregnant women's bellies. More info. >>267 >>277

"1,550,000 abortions anually (roughly), according to the CDC around the years of 1980-1990.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but 1% of this total would be 15,500 per year.  While this could indeed be considered 'rare' due to the fact that the total number of abortions that occur annually is simply staggeringly large, this is *not* good enough, considering that these are the 'late' pregnancies you speak of.  This is an annual number... 15,500/yr  is *far* from acceptable and warrants decisive and quick legislative action to prevent this loss of human life"

It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers.

""No it wasn't! :D"

You fail to explain why it wasn't."

http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=904492
>>387

"To me, this is dependent upon how late in development the fetus is.  Life does not begin at birth, though I doubt (unlike many pro-lifers) that it begins at conception.  That said, I'd rather take a pro-life stand than a pro-choice stand, allowing all abortions in an on-demand manner, which is really nothing more than legalized murder.. since it encompasses even those fetuses that may be quite late in development and could thus be considered more or less human."

Then you and me see eye-to-eye here.

"Yep.. but embryos aren't fetuses, and some abortions occur in this stage.  I don't think all abortions are murder, but I think some most definitely should be considered as such."

Eye-to-eye here again..depending on what your stance is in the time of the pregnancy.

"How? One person just has a different view of when 'life' begins. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this."

Not until said person starts pushing it in other people's faces.

"Oh god, I sense a Randroid!"

-question mark pops out of head- ?

"The democrats are wrong on abortion."

That, and the Repubs are more wrong.

""In reality, the potential is not the actual, nor is an entity's parts the same as the entity itself and rights can only be granted to actual rational entities."

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists."

I was making a general, scientific statement. Not declaring my view on when 'life' begins.

"You should not be claiming that the fetus is a 'potential' rather than an 'actual' since this is only in your mind - not in the mind of the person you are arguing with.  Your method of arguing on this subject is composed of massive fail.  If you want to convince me, you have to challenge my views about when life begins, not preach about why I am wrong based on when *you* think life begins.  The fetus isn't a 'potential' to me until you lead me to this conclusion, so this is all baseless."

Jibba jabba. See above.

"I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights."

<sarcasm>
So it's alright if I live inside you? -moves inside and erases her memory of how she did it- Cozy, warm...and wet...eeek.
</sarcasm>

"More liberal crap.. comparing fetuses with moles."

More prejudice. Analogies, no comparisons. Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

""Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder."

Assuming 23 weeks in pregnancy. Said movements being only reactionary and not purposeful. Also, uncapable of being able to 'feel' due to lack of a cerebrum and 'mind.'

""The basis for individual rights lies in man's nature as a rational animal, as a living being with a volitional consciousness (free will)."

OH! *Now* all a sudden we have free will..!  Coming from the person who says 'sex is a constant, nobody can be responsible for having sex!', this is pretty hilarious.  I guess you are a Rand-quoting free-will believer one second, and a 'nobody can be blamed for their actions - they can't control themselves!' liberal in the next.  Funny stuff."

Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me.

""The metaphysical act of birth, when the unborn makes the transition from mere potential to an actual human being and successfully separates from the mother to become a separate metaphysical entity, an actual living being with a volitional consciousness, confers the moral and political concept of rights."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but consciousness begins before birth, and even you know that."

Yeup, but I decided to be more crude with that statement as a large example.

We see eye-to-eye on most things, but what I abhore about you is your prejudice against me and your notion of deciding to get personal to try to stir up my thoughts. Please refrain from doing so.

>>391
"If my argumentation is wrong, prove it."

I think I did.

"Once again, all rights are prerequisites of another, a diamond grid, unless the nation is endangered."

Not sure what you mean here.

>>392
"Please don't make me laugh. That's not what I'm advocating. No need to stoop down to a personal level with me."

See >>386. 

"Uhhh okay... I dunno what gives you the idea that I'm advocating abortions on a whim, unless you're just venting some steam out on me. If you are, please direct it somewhere else. Xel and I see eye-to-eye here."

See >>386.  Xel doesn't advocate abortion on a whim, with the exception of the *hypothetical* situation. 

"I consider myself a libertarian/utilitarian. On another note..what does it matter what a person is? If the person is on a side that you don't like does that make what they invalid to you? You're being quite a Collectivist."

Nothing wrong with viewing people as groups, if a reasonable number of outcomes support this, and provided you give people the chance to show that they are different on an individual basis. 

"Those said people are also the ones generally able to provide for their offspring. No use jeaopardizing your health for something that you can't provide for in the end."

'That doesn't stop women with diabetes, high-blood pressure, and other disorders from risking their health/lives to become a mother out of good conscience. They are brave.' -Kumori

'I don't think attempting to have a baby/child in a situation in which you are not reasonably certain you will be able to provide for it is an act of 'good conscience,' but hey that's just me I guess, LOL.'  -Me

Ok.  If the mother has a rather large number of health problems that might cause a risk to either herself or the baby, I don't think deciding to try to have children anyways is an act of 'good conscience', as said above..  If she dies, even if the child manages to survive, who will the child turn to? The father maybe, but family will be broken.  I don't see how this is an act of 'good conscience.'

'There's nothing wrong with that. It's not the mother's fault if she has an ailment like diabetes.'  -Kumori

'That's right, its not.  But it *is* her fault if she decides to have a baby regardless of the fact that, according to you, she is 'unable' to properly care for it, and give birth to a baby even in light of her inability to care for it properly, putting the baby's well being at risk.'  -Me

The mother is not at fault for having diabetes.  She *would* be at fault for attempting to become pregnant and give birth regardless of health problems, which would not only possibly effect the child, but would also possibly indirectly effect the child if the mother dies, leaving the child to a broken family.  I am saying that, assuming the mother knew in advance of attempting to become pregnant and bear children that she had diseases or health issues which may put her or her child in danger during pregnancy and birth that this is an irresponsible act, and doesn't show much regard for her future children for obvious reasons.

"It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age."

By the time you are old enough to have sex, it is common enough.

"If I saw a bum I'd probably just buy him a load of bread out of good thought since I'm a nice person. Show some compassion. :/"

I wasn't saying I wouldn't help out bums, jeez.  It was *just* a hypothetical situation used to support my argument. You weren't ready to say that it was my fault I got mugged for not helping the bum out, but you were ready to say unwanted pregnancies are my fault for my not helping out those people having those problems either.. which is logically inconsistent.

"Even I know that as well, I was speaking in the matter of more of a conscience."

No you weren't, you said they weren't conscious and thus couldn't feel, which is totally inaccurate in accordance with the exact definitions of the words you used.  You flat out said they weren't conscious, and proceeded to use this to support your conclusions. 

"So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

That depends on the abnormality, and what constitutes an 'abnormality.'  I would never be ok with the abortion of a fetus if the only 'abnormality' it has is that it is missing a finger or two, or some minor thing like this.  However, if the fetus has an 'abnormality' such as was mentioned before, like being born without a spinal cord or some such, then I would again be fine with a late term abortion provided it is done in a humane manner. 

In the event that a disease springs upon the woman I have already said I would be fine with a late term abortion, so long as it is done in a humane manner. 

You should also note the wording in my reply: 'Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.'  This means that the woman should not be allowed to abort -as she pleases, even when the fetus is late in development-.  And note once more, I say -as she pleases-, by which I mean 'willy nilly', whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, etc.  I don't see how you pulled out of -this- wording that I was implying that abortion should be banned if it was -necessary- to preserve the mother's life.

"Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy,"

Redundant.  Whether they do or they don't, if it is murder, it should be outlawed, and I will tend to support those that will do as much.

"If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

Only if done in a humane manner, and only if the woman's life is in very *serious* jeopardy.  No fucking around with innocent human beings. 

"Now you are just being a spiteful ignoramous."

Based on the things I've heard you say in the past, I don't think I should rule out that you might allow it in said case.  Many of your comments above advocate abortion in -any- instance, for -any- reason, claiming it is a -right- to do as much.  Drawing this conclusion from the overall body of your comments is not really overstepping things in my opinion. 

"Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.."

That time.

"I guess you'll let mothers whose fetuses are "diagnosed with severe malformation watch their babies die in front of their eyes shortly after birth, or let them give birth to a stillborn. Congrats. -claps- You really gotta stop being prejudice against me."

Are you joking? What about all the Randroid abortion arguments we had up there? I don't think what I said was inaccurate.  You have been like Dr.  Jekyll and Mr. Hyde on this page, advocating restriction and restraint in some cases, and in others acting like abortion at anytime prior to birth is a -right-.

"It'll cause problems for both pro-choice and pro-life sides. One scenario.. Assuming that fetuses feel pain during the birthing process from being squeezed through tight vaginas,"

I hate to do anything causing pain to an innocent, but sorry, this is natural.  Fetuses get squeezed through vaginas all the time.  I don't see what is so unusual about this, and I don't advocate 'forced c-sections' unless it is necessary for the baby to live and be healthy.

"it'll make forced c-sections more widespread. It'll condone the evisceration of pregnant women's bellies. More info."

I don't advocate 'forced c-sections' unless it is necessary for the baby to be born healthy/alive.  In other cases, if possible, I say let it be born naturally if that's what the mother/family prefers, as much as I hate to cause pain.

"It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers."

*OR* we could just toughen up the laws, and hold people accountable, not allowing them to have late-term abortions. 

This is just plain not acceptable.  Even Xel doesn't like this, and he's famous for hating fetuses.  Again, these are late-term...  with the exception of the named exceptions above, we need bans on late term abortions asap.

"http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=904492";

Yes, and I already refuted his refutation.


>>387

"Then you and me see eye-to-eye here."

Well good!  I wasn't aware, based on comments aforementioned above.

"Eye-to-eye here again..depending on what your stance is in the time of the pregnancy."

Not sure what you mean by this.  I don't really have a set of things that I call 'life' or a timeframe that I can point to right now and say 'life begins here, specifically.'  I don't think it begins at conception, and I don't think it begins at birth. 

I haven't given this aspect much thought.  When it is more 'human' than fetus, I think abortion should begin to be regulated, and the more developed it gets, the tighter the regulations, as it would be more and more human as time goes on.

Since I don't really know when this point begins, I can't really say when to begin the regulation, but I *can* say with certainty that aborting conscious, feeling fetuses is wrong, unless.. said exceptions noted above.

"Not until said person starts pushing it in other people's faces."

Ok, so what if I happen to believe 'life' doesn't begin until age 18? Should I then be able to say 'hey you cant shove murder laws in my face, I don't believe it, lol'?

"That, and the Repubs are more wrong."

Repubs are wrong on abortion too, but not as wrong as dems.  Plus, conservatism and libertarianism are very similar.  Interesting shit. 
http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

Fail.  You are speaking in terms of when -you- think life begins.  You are arguing against someone elses' actions that they take based on when -they- think life exists."

"I was making a general, scientific statement. Not declaring my view on when 'life' begins."

Actually, it was not scientific.  'Rights can only be granted to/when....' is not scientifically proven.  Furthermore, when put in context, you were obviously talking about abortion. 

"Jibba jabba. See above."

I disagree.  See above.

"I don't see how merely because the fetus simply happens to be inside her deprives it of any rights."

"<sarcasm>
So it's alright if I live inside you? -moves inside and erases her memory of how she did it- Cozy, warm...and wet...eeek.
</sarcasm>"

So you *do* think that simply because the fetus hasn't been born that it isn't entitled to life (a right). 

"More prejudice. Analogies, no comparisons. Nyuk nyuk nyuk."

Fetuses are nothing like moles.  Fetuses have human form, human organs developed and developing, and even attain consciousness and have feeling in the fetal stage.  Moles? ...

""Anti-abortionists sometimes argue that within the womb, the unborn fetus moves and is capable of sensations. Because of this, the argument goes, the fetus is a living entity and therefore has a right to life."

Yep, it is borderline human, and can feel.  Killing at this point should constitute murder."

"Assuming 23 weeks in pregnancy. Said movements being only reactionary and not purposeful. Also, uncapable of being able to 'feel' due to lack of a cerebrum and 'mind.'"

I don't know when fetuses become able to feel, but you said they could in your example, and based on that, my answer was in the right place. 

"Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me."

I'm not trying to annoy you, I'm just pointing out the huge glaring inconsistency in your own argument, and for that matter, in the very same *post*!  You claim we have 'free-will', yet you are apparently unable to not have sex? Common.. What do you suppose ugly folks do? They obviously have to refrain from trying to have sex anyways.  All you need to do is exercise a little something referred to commonly as 'self-control'. 

"Statement showing that for acquiring human rights, you need a free will, which a fetus doesn't have. And I'll choose to ignore your personal note with me, since you're trying to annoy me.""

I also simply disagree with the basis upon which you are willing to dole out rights.

"We see eye-to-eye on most things, but what I abhore about you is your prejudice against me and your notion of deciding to get personal to try to stir up my thoughts. Please refrain from doing so."

My 'prejudice' is based on much of the crap you put in that post up there, which you *now* say you don't agree with.  Again, Dr. Jekyl/ Mr. Hyde.

Also, I was not the first to 'get personal.'

Further, many of the things you interpreted as getting personal, was my ridiculing your argument and its inconsistencies, which is not necessarilly personal if you ask me, but whatever. 

""It really isn't common knowledge in this day and age."

By the time you are old enough to have sex, it is common enough."

I have seen and heard about five year olds having sex already. I don't think they would have that kind of common knowledge. If they don't, then children up to the age of 13 really don't either.

""So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

That depends on the abnormality, and what constitutes an 'abnormality.'  I would never be ok with the abortion of a fetus if the only 'abnormality' it has is that it is missing a finger or two, or some minor thing like this.  However, if the fetus has an 'abnormality' such as was mentioned before, like being born without a spinal cord or some such, then I would again be fine with a late term abortion provided it is done in a humane manner. 

In the event that a disease springs upon the woman I have already said I would be fine with a late term abortion, so long as it is done in a humane manner. 

You should also note the wording in my reply: 'Women should not be allowed to abort regardless of how late in development the fetus is.'  This means that the woman should not be allowed to abort -as she pleases, even when the fetus is late in development-.  And note once more, I say -as she pleases-, by which I mean 'willy nilly', whenever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, etc.  I don't see how you pulled out of -this- wording that I was implying that abortion should be banned if it was -necessary- to preserve the mother's life."

Hmm... CONTRADICTION! Dunanananananan.

""Women do not have abortions on a whim in late pregnancy,"

Redundant.  Whether they do or they don't, if it is murder, it should be outlawed, and I will tend to support those that will do as much."

I have already stated the reasons of late-term abortion. And yet you find it as 'murder', you are contradicting yourself here. Banning abortion is just as bad as the abortion itself.

""If the fetus (assuming seven months into pregnancy where the cerebrum starts developing) places the woman's health/life in jeaopardy or if it has a severe abnormality, then it should be terminated."

Only if done in a humane manner, and only if the woman's life is in very *serious* jeopardy."

You're still willing to place the woman's health at risk though?

"No fucking around with innocent human beings."

I Lol'd.

""Notice I said 'severe'. Geez.."

That time."

I also said it before that: "So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

""It is quite good, considering the number of abortions and the number of women in the United States. That's an excellent number. If you want to make that number go down, then you're gonna have to provide better education and pre-natal care for mothers."

*OR* we could just toughen up the laws, and hold people accountable, not allowing them to have late-term abortions."

But you see, those late-term abortions only happen due to medical reasons. Also, notice I was talking about mothers. Laws don't help mothers keep food in their cabinets so she may get the proper nutrition she needs to give her child a healthy start. You are being completely against life and liberty here.

"Ok, so what if I happen to believe 'life' doesn't begin until age 18? Should I then be able to say 'hey you cant shove murder laws in my face, I don't believe it, lol'?"

As crazy as it sounds, if that's what you wanna believe then believe it I don't give a damn, just stay out of my face from it.

"Fetuses are nothing like moles.  Fetuses have human form, human organs developed and developing, and even attain consciousness and have feeling in the fetal stage.  Moles? ..."

Just as crazy as your Bill Gates analogy.

"You claim we have 'free-will', yet you are apparently unable to not have sex? Common.."

Yes, humans have free-will, but they also have instinct.

"What do you suppose ugly folks do?"

So..only beautiful people have sex?

"They obviously have to refrain from trying to have sex anyways."

They're still gonna have sex anyways despite looks.

"I also simply disagree with the basis upon which you are willing to dole out rights."

I believe I am right with what I said.

"My 'prejudice' is based on much of the crap you put in that post up there, which you *now* say you don't agree with.  Again, Dr. Jekyl/ Mr. Hyde."

Whatever, I don't know them. Lol.

"Also, I was not the first to 'get personal.'

Further, many of the things you interpreted as getting personal, was my ridiculing your argument and its inconsistencies, which is not necessarilly personal if you ask me, but whatever."

You were just simply blind-sighted half the time.

THE HORROR! PLEASE MAKE IT STOP! MAKE IT ALL STOP! THIS THREAD SHOULD BE DELETED!

>>394
"I have seen and heard about five year olds having sex already."

At that age, they couldn't become pregnant anyways, so I really don't care. 

"I don't think they would have that kind of common knowledge. If they don't, then children up to the age of 13 really don't either."

Not true.  I knew by the time I was 13.

"Hmm... CONTRADICTION! Dunanananananan."

?

"I have already stated the reasons of late-term abortion. And yet you find it as 'murder', you are contradicting yourself here. Banning abortion is just as bad as the abortion itself."

It most certainly is not.  Is banning murder just as bad as the murder itself? And yes, we are talking about 'murder' - late term abortions performed on fetuses that could be considered more or less 'human.'

I'm for a good BAN on all late term abortions with the exceptions noted.  The only thing left to think about is what constitutes 'late.'

"You're still willing to place the woman's health at risk though?"

Did you even read what I said? If the woman's life is in serious jeopardy, abortion is fine provided it is done in a humane manner.  I'm not sure how much more simple I can make this.

"I Lol'd."

Well, judging by your past statements, I figured you might be ok with that sort of thing, so I had to put it in writing to make sure we were clear.

"I also said it before that: "So...if there's a medical problem that threatens the woman's health/life/well-being or if the fetus has a severe abnormality she is denied an abortion in late pregnancy, nice going."

That's what you said that time.  You are tooting a different horn now than you were a while back.

"But you see, those late-term abortions only happen due to medical reasons."

I don't know that.  Furthermore, while I don't *know* they are done inhumanely, I don't know that there are laws concerning this aspect of things, and there most definitely should be.

"Also, notice I was talking about mothers. Laws don't help mothers keep food in their cabinets so she may get the proper nutrition she needs to give her child a healthy start. You are being completely against life and liberty here."

No I'm not.  I didn't mention the formation of any laws, I just noted how irresponsible and careless women who attempt to create a baby while full of diseases and health problems are.

"As crazy as it sounds, if that's what you wanna believe then believe it I don't give a damn, just stay out of my face from it."

How can you be missing this point? At some point, people obviously have to 'push' murder laws into the faces of others.  I want to extend government protection to unborn who are old enough to be considered human lives.. I see nothing wrong with this.  What, you want anarchy? Remove laws against murder and rape as well? ..

"Just as crazy as your Bill Gates analogy."

No it wasn't.  Bill Gates had a few of his inalienable rights sacrificed in my analogy for the utilitarian effect of benefitting a larger group of people... and likewise, you advocate doing the same thing with fetuses - sacrificing some inalienable rights simply due to the fact that another group is larger.  The analogy was a good one.

"Yes, humans have free-will, but they also have instinct."

Yes, and they can exercise their free-will and not have sex.  You act like a guy's dick is like a huge magnet and no matter what he does, it will drag him along until it reaches someone's vagina.  Well, this is a fantasy.  Even sex-crazed men can exercise something called 'self-control.'  If you aren't ready to let people become responsible for their own actions, you certainly aren't a libertarian.

"So..only beautiful people have sex?"

No, but there are many ugly people who are deprived, and must abstain, yet still are able to live and get by.  They don't really have a choice but to control themselves.. or get thrown in jail for rape if they don't.

"They're still gonna have sex anyways despite looks."

Not if nobody will do it with them.

"I believe I am right with what I said."

I don't.  There is more to it than just being 'rational.'

"Whatever, I don't know them. Lol."

Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Jekyll

Quite a famous story.  Enjoy.

"You were just simply blind-sighted half the time."

How was I blind-sighted? I was right.  Late term abortions should not be allowed with the abovementioned exceptions.

"Not true.  I knew by the time I was 13." I can't believe we've been talking to every American citizen all this time. Incredible.

>>397
"I don't think they would have that kind of common knowledge. If they don't, then children up to the age of 13 really don't either."  -Kumori

"Not true.  I knew by the time I was 13."  -Me

Kumori made a general statement, and I pointed out that it was not true in my case.  Imo, if I managed to find this stuff out before 13, I don't see why anyone else couldn't either.  I suppose this could be interpreted that they *would* have this knowledge, but this is not what I meant.  I mean that they *could* have this knowledge. 

If I walk up and touch a red-hot burner because I didn't know any better, but didn't take the time to learn not to beforehand either, and I get burned, that's my fault.  You might see this as a harsh view of things, but oh well, I'd say 'too bad.'

Many people do things that are against the law without knowing it, but this doesn't mean they should be immune to the said law, nor does the fact that people who might not know their actions will lead them to becoming pregnant make them not at fault for becoming pregnant.  Ignorance is no excuse - it is your responsibility to care for yourself and educate yourself. 

>>398
Good point.  Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

yes it is