What your daughter may soon be sporting

[Gorgo]

Show me the law that says that it is murder.

Show me the birth records that tells me that it's a child.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Show me how a fetus is not a human, and thus not worthy of the protection of the law for humans.

Laws are just the rules soiety says it is placing on itself, in this case Abortion is termed not murder by the law. Laws can be wrong.

Ending an innocent life is murder. And that is wrong.

[Gorgo]

So, it is not murder, and it is not a child. What is your problem with this again?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Your really not witty trying to deflect the point I made, it helps if you do the whole "read" thing. Really it does.

It IS murder, and should be illegal. Thus my point.

Lets do this S-L-O-W-L-Y so I don't lose you again.

1. An unborn child is alive, it should be protected by law.

2. People like you prefer to promote death, and convienced the SC to conjure up the "right to privacy" to allow women the right to murder.

3. An unborn child is alive, and should be acccorded the protections of every human in this country. to end thier life is murder.

4. An unborn child is alive, to kill them (abort) is murder.

5. Laws aren't always correct, or right, this is one case.

6. An unborn child deserves the right to live, it is an innocent life, it should be protected.

7. Murdering an unborn child is wrong.

Get it yet? Or did I go too fast?

[Liberty Landing]

Originally posted by Gorgo, So, it is not murder, and it is not a child. What is your problem with this again?

You present this as a fact when it is only an interpretation of fact. The embryological community has never reached a scientific consensus as to whether the fetus constitutes human life -- primarily because no community has ever reached a consensus on what "life" is.

Ergo, there is no scientific evidence to lend credence to either side. It is an entirely philosophical/moral debate.

With no certainty either way, I give the unborn the benefit of the doubt.

[waterfalllife]

After 5 weeks it should become illegal to have an abortion according to Mr. V's Ideals. Thats when the heart begins to beat. So anything with a heartbeat is alive.

http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html

*edit: note I do not support the ideals of that website, they just give the facts of fetal development. Trying to help stages here.

[Gorgo]

And I give the born the benefit of the doubt.

Seriously, this is not the best contraception. We need a good morning after pill. We need good sex education. We need condoms and contraception readily available to those children foolish enough to risk disease and pregnancy.

We need to understand that wherever we draw the line, not everyone will be happy.

This is largely a political football used to get extreme right wing people into office, like George Bush, who would otherwise find it hard to survive without his rich relatives.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Yes waterfall, thats about right. It has a heartbeat.. your not dead till your heart stops. Why is the moment it begins to beat such a monumentally difficult way to determine the start of life?

[Mr.Vicchio]

What about Abstinance until Marriage? Why do you leave that time tested and proven method for dealing with unwanted pregnancy?

[Liberty Landing]

And I give the born the benefit of the doubt.

Hence the reason Mr. V keeps implying you are a murderer -- because you would rather guarantee the comfort of the born rather than the life of the unborn.

This is largely a political football used to get extreme right wing people into office, like George Bush, who would otherwise find it hard to survive without his rich relatives.

And not simply an issue that has genuinely divided the electorate?
Bush is about in line with the majority of Americans who support restrictions, but not a ban, on abortion.
It would not be a political football if the Democratic Party were more in touch with the American people on this issue. Ann Coulter didn't suggest they rename themselves the "Abortion Party" for no reason.

[Kyran]

Oh boy, we're discussing abortion.

Why do people terminate children that can be put up for adoption? This is hardly necessary; pregnancies which endanger the mother's life add up to a small fraction of the total out there.

If you want to argue, answer this question.

[CmJour]

Show me how a fetus is not a human, and thus not worthy of the protection of the law for humans.

"Human" has two meanings. One meaning is that something is human if it has human DNA, or human means "rational animal", a being that has acquired the capacity to eventually learn how to think abstractly, and self-reflectively.

If you say that a fetus has rights because it has human DNA, then your view of what qualifies as having rights is very strange. If there were an intelligent alien race that has different DNA, then it wouldn't be murder to wipe them out if we are to say something has rights based on the fact that it has human DNA. DNA by itself doesn't determine rights

On the other hand, if you go by the "rational animal" definition of human being, then obviously the fetus doesn't qualify, at least not until the beginning of the third trimester when its cerebral cortex is fully formed and it then has the capacity to think like a rational animal.

And that is another thing, we have to distinguish between potentiality based on capacity and potentiality in general. Of course the fetus is a potential rational animal but that potentiality means nothing morally if it doesn't already have the capacity to potentially learn how to think like a rational animal.

[Liberty Landing]

And that is another thing, we have to distinguish between potentiality based on capacity and potentiality in general.

Which are you saying is which?

Are you saying what I'm saying: that "potentially in capacity" is the fetus, while "potentiality in general" is the sperm? (i.e., the former, barring something like abortion or a birth defect, will become a human; the latter can't on its own).

Or are you saying that, in capacity, it's an already-born baby and, in general, it's a fetus?

[Pooeypants]

Originally posted by Mr.Vicchio, How is it a lie? A fetus is a baby. Its alive, it has a heart beat... its human. To end that life before 9 months is murder. How you can reasonably consider a fetus anything short of an alive human is beyond me. Calling the ending of that life anything sans murder is beyond me as well.

Killing civilians during a war, that's also murder as well is it? You know, people that are alive with a heartbeat? So why don't I see to complaining when civilian casualties are reported during conflicts?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Isnt a sperm a living, swimming, immature human being?
So, to avoid sexual discrimination, you would have to arrest all men who have ever masterbated in their life. Each infraction carries charges of millions of little homicides.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Gr8, thats an absurd position. Sperm is just a cell, if you left the sperm in the human body for 9 months it wouldn't become a human. Mix 1 egg and 1 sperm and THEN you get life. Before then.. no.

Pooey, the issue is abortion, not war, please stick to the topic and don't cloud it up with moral equivications please.

[Liberty Landing]

Originally posted by gr8fuldaniel, Isnt a sperm a living, swimming, immature human being? So, to avoid sexual discrimination, you would have to arrest all men who have ever masterbated in their life. Each infraction carries charges of millions of little homicides.

Didn't I just confront that issue?

A fertilized egg has potential for life. An individual sperm or an unfertilized, individual egg doesn't.

[CmJour]

Are you saying what I'm saying: that "potentially in capacity" is the fetus, while "potentiality in general" is the sperm? (i.e., the former, barring something like abortion or a birth defect, will become a human; the latter can't on its own). Or are you saying that, in capacity, it's an already-born baby and, in general, it's a fetus?

A fetus before the third trimester would fall into the the potentiality in general category because it doesn't yet have the capacity to learn how to be a rational animal. After it has that capacity it has the potential to learn hence "potentiality in capacity".

[Zeebadee]

The arrogance it takes for someone to insist that they know the exact moment that life begins is no different than the arrogance it takes for a person to insist that they know what the True religion is. It's interesting to note that one of the posters in here that condemns Muslims for trying to force Islam on society is perfectly willing to force his own opinions on society instead. Does life begin at the moment of conception, when the heart begins to function? The brain? When the fetus is viable on it's own, outside the womb? Prove it. Are you willing to outlaw ALL abortion, including those performed to save the mother, and those pregnancies caused by rape and incest?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Arrogance is saying that a baby, a human child whose heart is beating, that can move its arms, legs... doesn't deserve the right to live because it may inconvience or hinder the mothers lifestyle. Now that is arrogance.