If you are against Abortion, why are there......

[syracusa]

SVMc

Thank you for the post above - you obviously have way more patience that I have in going through the logics of the whole thing. I find it hard for me to do this because:

1. I have little patience with people who think they have the ABSOLUTE in their hands.

2. I have this feeling that going through dry logics with them just doesn't work (hence my simple proposition of allowing each side to just follow their own "ethics"). Just because he tells me that he is only concerned with "human rights" and nothing else doesn't mean I am buying his "sales pitch".
Ahhh....I just love it when these conservatives' hearts start "bleeding" for "human rights" out of the blue...yet when it comes to helping weaker or vulnerable individuals get through life (not just get INTO life) - they just yell "individual responsibility" in their faces and let them "pull themselves up by their own strings", regardless of whether that is even doable or not.

3. I am much more emotionally invested in this maybe becasue I am a woman and I admit I get bubbles on my brain when some guy comes to me and tells me WHEN and UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES I should be forced to give birth to whatever may start growing inside my own body at some point. The idea of someone FORCING me to pop something through my ......., AGAINST MY WILL, makes me very, very mad.
If anything will come out of that place, accompanied by the kind of pain that makes me scream and yell like a cow in the middle of being butchered (let alone the prospect of a messed-up life lying ahead of me) it will have to be with my ABSOLUTE PRIOR APPRPOVAL.
Otherwise, it's not going to happen.


And like you said, if a woman wants to stop that from happening to her body, she will do it anyway, law or not law. They have been doing it for millenia - a law will not stop that now or ever. So yes - it boils down to creating an environment where the lowest number of women will be forced to opt for an abortion.

What is downright sickening to me is that most people who are staunch opponents of the pro-life BS, actually NEVER have abortions. It is often the lower-class type or teenagers with rigid moralistic/religious principles and little info, who often buy THEORETICALLY into the pro-life BS - but end up having abortions anyway when bad luck strikes.
There are scientific studies published on this topic.

I never had an abortion, neither do I intend to have one ever; but this is becasue I am extremely well equipped to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. When it came to the reverse of the situation, making a pregnancy HAPPEN ... with all the info I accumulated so far, it took us a whopping ONE TRY, with none of us being a "spring chicken" exactly.

I am now pregnant and couldn't be happier.Of course, this is very much a wanted baby, planned at the right time, under the right circumstances. Yes, not only a very "convenient" baby, but one that we hope will bring us lots of joy so we can feed it back to him/her and have everyone else live happily ever after! Like it is SUPPOSED TO BE. I am also willing to go through anything to have him/her - because I am prepared for it and it is MY CHOICE.

But this situation does not apply to everyone who gets pregnant (and I won't even get into the issue of fetuses with birth defects...).

Anyway, thanks for the patience to write the above, it was a nice read that helps me keep my faith in at least part of humanity. And yes, you are right about the labels. I very much dislike both because neither reflects the ultimate goal of each viewpoint.

Oh, well.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: "SMVc Source? While it is largely held by the so-called pro-life camp that there is sufficient scientific proof that a fetus is a human this is not quantatively true, or better put it is a simplified version of the scientific arguments that could lend strength to the so-call pro-life camp. The argument that a fetus IS a human, is not a direct argument. It can be scientifically proven that a fetus has the potential to become a human.

Source? Common sense and a pretty good handle on taxonomy. With the exception of a few sterile hybrids, all living creatures belong to one species or another. Those that do belong to a species are members of that species for the duration of their existence. Living creatures do not switch species at any point during their existence. An unborn's DNA, from the moment it is concieved identifies it as a unique member of species h. sapiens. the fact that it is not further along in its development in no way changes the fact that it is human. You are exactly as human today as you were when you were first concieved and if you live to be 125 you will not become more human by virtue of your age or stage of development.

I would, however, be interested in hearing your explanation of how a human has the potential to become human. That should be interesting.

Quote by: "SMVc It is highly contested within the scientific community, if cells that are only partially developed can have rights unto themselves. The reasons that it is so contentious are many:

Actually there is little discussion within the scientific community regarding rights of anything. Science isn't particularly interested in law, sicence is interested in discovery. The cells that make up an unborn are not partially developed, they are complete. It is the unborn itself that has not matured but the fact that the unborn has not developed to an arbitrary point does not dimish the fact that it is human, any more than the fact that you are more developed than an infant makes you more human.

Quote by: "SMVc As it concerns pregnancy/abortion many can see the validity of labeling a third trimester fetus as human, since a third trimester fetus can theoretically survive if born early, it can feel pain, has a fully functioning nervous system, brain, skin so on and so forth. However a first trimester pregnancy cold never survive outside the womb without incredible technology, it is does not have fully developed systems, and the argument that a first timester fetus can feel or be aware are comletely unsubstantiated at this point and have no conclusive data to back them up.

Are you suggesting here that dependence in some how dimishes humanity? I can't ever recall anyone arguing that the unborn is not dependent, but I can find nowhere in case law a case in which dependence is a valid reason to kill. A human zygote at conception + 5 hours is exactly as developed as it is supposed to be. The fact that it requires its natural environment to survive in no way negates its humanity. If you were removed from your natural environment without lifesupport you would also die. Does that in some way make you less than human?

And at that stage of development, an unborn has no need of feeling or awareness. To suggest that we are more or less human based on our chronological age, or natural stage of development is simply specious.

Quote by: "SMVc Also as science has developed if we claim that a newly fertalized egg is now a human with full rights, then we open the door for legislation on property or civil rights of stem cells or stored sperm and eggs. As individual parts of our bodies gain rights independant of the person, the individual person looses rights. The line can always be drawn further on either side of the equation, the question is not yes or no, it's where do we place the line.

Stem cells are simply that. Cells. Left to their own they will become a red blood cell, or a muscle cell, or a lymphocyte, or any number of other specialized form of cell. But a cell is all that it can ever be.

Sperm and eggs? What rights could they ever have. They are just cells, no more important to your body than fingernail clippings. They are unique in that they are the only cells within your body that only have a half set of chromosomes. In that, and their function they could be considered potential life but that is all. Once they get together, however, and each contribute their half set of chromosomes to a new and unique DNA fingerprint, their potential is realized. Both sperm and egg cease to exist, and a new life is begun. Your cells don't have rights and nor should they. But the unborn isn't part of its mother's body. Any 2nd year lab student could do a DNA test and positively identify any cell from the unborn as not belonging to the mother's body. It is a unique individual, and under the present law, that unique individual has no rights at all. Presently, the law classifies humans that are less than a certain age as property. Clearly there is a flaw in the application of the law.

Unless you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is neither living, nor human, where the line belongs is quite obvious if you believe that humans have inalienable rights.

Quote by: "SMVc So the best that can be said is that a fetus has the potential to be human, but in fact is not yet a human.

A "human" fetus can not become human as it is already human. Unless, of course, you can clue me in to what species it may belong to before it "transmutates" into a member of h. sapiens. This is one of the problems with trying to defend an indefensible stance. You are forced to attempt to redefine biological realities to suit your argument. What species were you prior to traveling down 7 inches of birth canal and by what magic did you change from one species to another?

Quote by: "SMVc Again, this is an assertion, like mine above, but without argument or proof it lacks substance. The question of abortion is not if it is okay to kill a human, it is simply not that simple. With all likelyhood there is reasonable evidence that a third trimester fetus could be a point at which we define life, however arguing from the point of conception is significantly more difficult. Simply because we can proove that cells satisfy a definition of "life" that does not mean that they satisfy a definition of "human life

Unless you can demonstrate in some real way that an unborn is not h. sapiens, then the argument is just that simple. Either a human is being killed or not.

Life - n. -The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

Which of these properties does an unborn fail to meet? This is what life is and how it is defined. Any further definition of life is nothing but sophistry fabricated in an attempt to unilataraly redefine words in order to make an invalid point.

The unborn is a unique individual at a normal, and particular stage of development. If it is human, and alive, then it is a living human. An unborn can not fall under the classification of simply a bundle of cells. A bundle of cells within the mother's body would have her DNA, even if they were cancerous. And a bundle of cells will never be more than a bundle of cells. An unborn is a unique individual. You know that an unborn is different, but that philosophical corner that you have painted yourself into prevents you from even admitting what you know to be true. What kind of position is that to hold?

continued...

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: "SMVc A direct compaison to murder is not warranted in cases of first trimester abortion since we do not prosecute or compare any other cellular destruction to murder. Even if you are not satisfied with cellular destruction, a woman's body frequently rejects a pregnancy in and of itself. A miscarriage under the black and white paradigm of so-called pro-life would then be manslaughter. Again this brings us back to the idea that the question is not yes or no, kill or don't kill, it's where do we draw the line on what constitutes killing.

Cellular destruction does not describe what happens during an abotion. A living being is terminated. Kill is the accurate term.

A miscarriage is a natural occurance, no more malicious than a stroke, or a cerebral hemmorage. Natural death does not constitute killing.

We know what constitutes killing. You are just unable to admit it from that philosphical corner that you are in. If I found myself having to unilatarally redefine words in order to make my point, I would seriously reconsider my position. But then I am a thinking person. I don't want to be wrong. Provide a more powerful, truthful argument than mine and I am on your side. I don't hold philosophical positions that I know to be false simply because they seem to be the "right" position to hold depending upon some group that I wish to identify with.

Quote by: "SMVc The fallacy in the pro-life argument is not that they are forcing women not to have abortions. It is well documented that making abortions illegal will not stop abortions from happening. So, the fallacy is that while pro-life claims to be preserving life, the very solution they propose will inevitably not lead to more life, it will in fact lead to more death.

Strawman argument. Without merit. It is also well documented that making murder illegal does not stop murder from happening. The same is true for drug trafficking, speeding through school zones, child abuse, theft of cable tv, and removing the federal tags from pillows. The fact that an activity will not stop just because it is illegal is no reason to turn a blind eye to it when it is patently wrong.

It is also well documented that making an activity illegal will discourage most people from engaging in it. So making abortion illegal will in fact not lead to more death. Perhaps if abortion were made illegal, economic incentive would exist for pharmacuticals to develop that perfect contraceptive.

Quote by: "SMVc The fallacy of the pro-choice argument is that they have bought into the pro-life jargon. Pro-choicer's defend a woman's right to "choose" an abortion. But, the fact is that no woman ever chooses to have an abortion, they choose not to have a baby.

Another strawman. No different than saying that do not choose to fall to my death, I choose to jump from an airplane without a parachute. Abortion kills an unborn human being. The term baby is a smoke screen. Baby is nothing but a term used to describe a human being that is at a particular age, or stage of development. A baby is not more or less human by virtue of its age, or stage of development.

Quote by: "SMVc Therefore pro-life and pro-choice essentially have the same goals, but they don't recognize it. If someone is truly pro-life they need to prevent a circumstance where an abortion would happen, thereby preventing (as they see it) a human being killed. If someone is truly pro-choice their goal is to give women the choice not to have to carry a baby when they don't want to. In other words for both camps to achieve their goals they need to focus on unwanted pregnancy prevention.

I don't see the same goals. I want it to be illegal to kill unborn human beings, just the same as it is illegal to kill all other human beings. The pro choice side wants to have the right to decide to kill a certain class of human beings for any or no reason. One really would have to torture logic to see a mutual goal there.

If preventing unwanted pregnancy is the goal, there is a form of birth control that works every time it is tried. It starts with an A. As I have stated before, if abortion is illegal, economic incentive will exist for research into a perfect contraceptive. Such incentive will not exist as long as abortion is an alternative.

Quote by: "SMVc The largest cause of abortion is young girls (teenagers) who did not use or did not know how to properly use birth control measures. The second most common reason for abortion is rape. The first reason far outstipps the second, none the less they are both important. It is clearly demonstrated in numerous studies that educating teenagers significantly reduces STD's and unwanted pregnancies (not only among teenagers, but overall). This also significantly reduces the abortion rate. There are all sorts of myths out there about people who were simply irresponsible and therefore use abortion as birth control. Facts, very few women want an abortion, reasons that teenage women don't use birth control are usually one of three: 1) The social stigma of being labelled a slut - using birth control is an admition of sexual activity and the United States as the last developed nation to enforce an abstinance program in place of sexual education is the developed nation with the most stigma surrounding sex. 2) Economics or perceived economics. The most effective methods of birth control are also the most expensive, you need access to a doctor and be able to purchase perscriptions. Even where a teenage girl may be able to have these costs subsidized lack of proper sexual education makes many teenage girls think that they have to be depandant on condoms alone and completely unaware of the location and practices of free clinics. Not knowing about these options also means many do not know about ECP. 3) Myths, lies and general lack of knowledge. The abstinance program in the US inhibits frank and open conversation about sex. Many teenagers don't really know how or when pregancy happens, (obviously thorugh sex - but beyond that). Some still believe that the rythm method (more commonly used to test for best fertility times) is birth control, others think that you can't get pregnant on the first time, or particular times of the year, or if you are drunk, or on particular drugs, or if you jump up and down afterwards or a number of other myths that anyone else properly educated in sexual education would find ridiculous, these myths persist. To take if further some hard line abstinance programs have actively attacked various methods of birth control, giving the impression that you are as likely to get pregnant from sex with protection as sex without, so some feel that they are doomed to get pregnant regardless of precautions, so they take none, while all the time blaming themselves for engaging in a biological activity that are bodies are programmed to want more than anything during the teenage years.

While I appreciate the time you took to write this, and the feeling you have invested into it, it amounts to no more than an attempt to justify the killing of an innocent human being. It in no way addresses that reality, or negates it in any way. I feel sorry for people who get hit and killed by busses, and I feel for people who fall from their roofs while cleaning the gutters, and all the other bad things that happen to people. But the fact is that in nearly all situations, when we make a mistake, we suffer the consequences immediately. When an abortion is performed, an innocent human being dies because of the mistakes of its parents.

I know that you want to be right on this issue, but quite simply, you can't. All the facts, all the science all our knowledge of human development is on my side. All you have is a flawed application of the law. No different that the flawed application that once said that blacks were not human beings with inalienable rights. You don't have an argument that I can't tear down with hard, cold, factual science. Except the one that says that you simply don't have a problem with killing innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience, and what needs to be said to a statement like that?

[Pale RIder]

syracusa > it was nice of SMVc to come to your rescue, but as you can see, his/her argument failed just as yours. Your argument is shallow, emotional, and based on a terrible distortion of fact. Such an argument can not stand up to scientific fact. As a result, you are left talking to someone else as if I were not here, congratulating him/her on thier failed argument in an attempt to excuse yourself from being able to defend your own position.

I am in no way surprised that you can't defend your position. You argue like an emotional woman. While there may be much passion and feeling in your statements, there is little, if any real fact. Shallow, poorly thought out, and extremely hypocritical.

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I mean abortion. I mena 1.2 million children dead before they are born. I mean 1.2 million women feel that the children in thier wombs are unwanted, and the best way to deal with thier unwanted is death. Hitler did the same thing for different reasons. Same difference.

That is the womans choice if she wants the growing mass of cells aborted. Not yours. Generally, the best way to get rid of an unwanted cluster of cells is to abort it. Your views should not be imposed on other people.

[grace5]

Abortion eliminated unwanted kids, to avoid foster care.

I think we should do away with all the red heads as I just dont like red hair and most other folks dont either its hurting my eyes and beside that they really are not people,they are a burden, and are just taking up too much spacew on the planet, they are just a blob of cells that are cling together and if they were real people they would be more like me....

Pretty silly, but then again look at what your posting.

Just because I say redheads are not really people and we should do away with them all,does'nt make that correct nor does it present a truth ,it only shows my thoughts/ ideas.
everyone has a right to live regardless of what you think.

[syracusa]

Quote by: Pale RIder syracusa > it was nice of SMVc to come to your rescue, but as you can see, his/her argument failed just as yours. Your argument is shallow, emotional, and based on a terrible distortion of fact. Such an argument can not stand up to scientific fact. As a result, you are left talking to someone else as if I were not here, congratulating him/her on thier failed argument in an attempt to excuse yourself from being able to defend your own position. I am in no way surprised that you can't defend your position. You argue like an emotional woman. While there may be much passion and feeling in your statements, there is little, if any real fact. Shallow, poorly thought out, and extremely hypocritical.

Oh, yeah - aren't you so proud of yourself? "You won"... what can I say. At this point, if I were you, I would be ashamed of myself to continue with the non-sense and the waste of time. Or do you love to hear yourself write?
I can assure you that you managed nothing but to convinvce yourself of your own righteousness (which is nowhere where you think it is, other than in your head).

The REALITY REMAINS that you have no way to interfere with what happens inside my body. Not only because I have a LAW that currently backs me up and which I will always fight to uphold - but even if you manged to pass a law to FORCE ME to do things your way, you would still not be able to stop me from deciding what and when is going to grow inside my own body.

Trust me: I would find a way to have that abortion, with or without your approval, with or without a law backing me up.

In the face of this reality, your lofty dogma has just crumbled into pieces. It remains just this: A DOGMA and you remain a sucker who just spent ...how long?...writing on a board to convince himself of his own righteousness.

By the way, do you have anything against emotional women? (Yeap, when it is about my own body, I reserve the right to be emotional and proud of it).
I have something against dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, unemotional men, in love with their own "infallible" minds.

For now, the law supports the "emotional woman". Go give yourself a pet on the back and find some peace.

[Pooeypants]

Mr Pale rider, by the medical definition, when is does the baby become "alive"?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa I am now pregnant and couldn't be happier.Of course, this is very much a wanted baby, planned at the right time, under the right circumstances. Yes, not only a very "convenient" baby, but one that we hope will bring us lots of joy so we can feed it back to him/her and have everyone else live happily ever after! Like it is SUPPOSED TO BE. I am also willing to go through anything to have him/her - because I am prepared for it and it is MY CHOICE.

Incredible that you can't see it. The blatant hypocricy. You claim to be pregnant and happy about it. Yours is a BABY, as if the fact that you wan't it makes it something different from what it would be if you didn't want it. When you don't want a piece of cheesecake, does it become liver and onions by virtue of you not wanting it? The fact that these are the right circumstances for you and your partner in no way makes your child more human than it would be if you didn't want it. You hope that your child will bring joy to you. Well the 40 million children that have been killed were just as capable of bringing joy as the one you carry now.

Your fairy tale notion of living happily ever after is exactly that. We don't live fairy tales. We all struggle, we all have less than perfectly happy lives. Killing an innocent because it might not always be happy is beyond my understanding because none of us is always happy.

And you are willing to go through anything to have "HIM / HER" (another admission that you know in your heart what you carry but can not admit when arguing your position). You know in your heart that the child you carry is human, and alive. Just as human and alive as you.

And you know that when you hold it, you will be holding a precious life that was created by you and your partner. And when you first look into its beautiful face, (because they are all beautiful, even when they are covered in blood and goo) and see its profound innocence, and the unconditional trust that it gives you, take just a moment to consider the 40 million others JUST LIKE YOURS that have been casually tossed into a dumpster after being torn limb from limb from thier mother's bodies as a result of your dogma.

In fact, as it grows, and brings you more happiness than you believe that you deserve, take the occasional moment to cry for the 40 million JUST LIKE YOURS who were killed because they were not convenient. And perhaps, in that emotional catharsis, you will realize how wrong the position that you have held is. Perhaps the love that you have for your own child, and the realization that it is in no way different from all the ones that have been killed will be powerful enough to help you finally admit the truth to yourself, and perhaps admit it to others as well.

If I have been unduly harsh, for that I apologize. But this is serious business to me. If I have to hurt your feelings in order to get my point across to you, or someone who may read my words, then your discomfort is a small price to pay to save a life. A life that is just as precious as the one that you are carrying right now. If you are pregnant, you will know what I am talking about when you first look into your child's face. Even if it has (God forbid) some imperfection, or defect that your doctor could not have predicted. You will love it no matter what, and it is no different from all the ones that have been murdered.

This tender moment has been brought to you by the makers of baby powder, for that baby smooootthhe backside. Now...back to the main event.

Quote by: syracusa Oh, yeah - aren't you so proud of yourself? "You won"... what can I say. At this point, if I were you, I would be ashamed of myself to continue with the non-sense and the waste of time. Or do you love to hear yourself write? I can assure you that you managed nothing but to convinvce yourself of your own righteousness (which is nowhere where you think it is, other than in your head).

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what parts of my posts were not true. I am not dishonest and would never want to post information that was not true. So please, what have I written that is not scientifically accurate? Unless you believe that accurate science and truth are a waste of time.

Quote by: syracusa The REALITY REMAINS that you have no way to interfere with what happens inside my body. Not only because I have a LAW that currently backs me up and which I will always fight to uphold - but even if you manged to pass a law to FORCE ME to do things your way, you would still not be able to stop me from deciding what and when is going to grow inside my own body.

Personally, no. I can't intefere with what you do with your body. But that is where most of you folks miss the bus anyway. You make it personal so that you can get all emotional and spew your self righteous rant. I can't personaly intefere with you if you take drugs, or practice prostitution, or any of the other myriad of laws that tell you what you may or may not do with your body. But I can support them, just as I support making abortion illegal. And when Roe falls, if you choose to believe that I personally, by force of my arguments, have made it happen, go ahead and believe it. Of course it won't be true, but obviously, you don't have much trouble believing untruth right now, so nothing changes.

Quote by: syracusa Trust me: I would find a way to have that abortion, with or without your approval, with or without a law backing me up.

Just like junkies find a way to get that fix. It is still wrong, it is still unhealthy, and it is still illegal. Turning a blind eye to bad things just because someone is going to do them anyway is as bad as the behavior itself. But the truth is that if it is illegal, MOST women won't have abortions.

Quote by: syracusa In the face of this reality, your lofty dogma has just crumbled into pieces. It remains just this: A DOGMA and you remain a sucker who just spent ...how long?...writing on a board to convince himself of his own righteousness.

As I have already demonstrated, your side is dogma as it can not be defended, yet you believe it to be true. Unilatarally redefining the word for your purposes indicates that either you don't know what the word means, or that you, yet again, are willing to lie in order to hold your position. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and grant you ignorance.

Quote by: syracusa By the way, do you have anything against emotional women? (Yeap, when it is about my own body, I reserve the right to be emotional and proud of it). I have something against dogmatic, rigid, inflexible, unemotional men, in love with their own "infallible" minds. For now, the law supports the "emotional woman". Go give yourself a pet on the back and find some peace.

Only when that emotion gets in the way of clear thinking. Like BEFORE they get pregnant. Emotion is fine, but it is no substitute for clear, objective thinking. And if you must continue to use the word dogma, take the time to look it up so that you can at least use it in the proper context.

Here are some accurate definitions for you:

Dogma:
-n. - an inflexible principle or set of principles laid down by an authority.

Clearly the principle of legal abortion was laid down by the supreme court; authority

- n. -A doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative

Did you not point out that your "dogma" is the law of the land right now?

- n. - A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth

I have given you honest, accurate science that disproves your position, yet you hold it anyway. Dogma. I am right and have science to prove it, you are wrong and have science to prove it, yet you hold your belief anyway. And you claim I am dogmatic. What a laugh.

[SVMc]

Dear Pale Rider,

I think that you have unintentionally or intentionally misread or misintreprted my post. I maintain that we share a similar goal of stopping abortions. Or, perhaps I am wrong and you simply want to make them illegal, however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since you feel so passionately that abortion is murder and an atrocity that you would like to see it ended.

To that end we share the same goal but have a disagreement on the best method of stopping abortions. You have tendered the argument that stopping abortions is achieved first and formost though a court of law making the act illegal. I have constested that your solution is simply a band-aid solution that does not produce the deisred results and furthermore aggrivates the trend.

Finally, I think that while we have opposing view points that it is no reason to accuse one person of knowingly lying. Let me assure you that I do not put as much thought into what I have written for the self-satisfaction of being right. Furthermore, I do not think that I am knowingly holding an indefensible position for the sake of politics. There are no winners in this scenario. I will thank you to extend the curtosy to me of assuming that I am genuine in what I argue, and that while you may disagree with my logic or evidence I look foward to pursuing a debate where we challenge points of argument and sources rather than resorting to tactics of personal attacks.

Let's get to the debate than shall we?

SVMc

[tripimollee]

(quote by palerider) " Incredible that you can't see it. The blatant hypocricy. You claim to be pregnant and happy about it. Yours is a BABY, as if the fact that you wan't it makes it something different from what it would be if you didn't want it. When you don't want a piece of cheesecake, does it become liver and onions by virtue of you not wanting it? The fact that these are the right circumstances for you and your partner in no way makes your child more human than it would be if you didn't want it. You hope that your child will bring joy to you. Well the 40 million children that have been killed were just as capable of bringing joy as the one you carry now. "
This woman knows that though HER pregnancy is happy and planned and wanted, others are not. She also knows that what happens within a womans body is limited exclusively to the woman, unless the woman decides to get others involved. If a woman is pregnant, that growing mass of cells in her body belongs exclusively to her- a man may have helped create it, but it is ultimately her body and if she cannot, for whatever reason, carry the child and deliver it, then the man has no say whatsoever as to what she can do to her body. Sorry, but thats the way the cookie crumbles. What you view as murder is not everyone's view of murder- everyone disagrees on when the life actually begins. Therefore, just because YOUR view is that it's murder, it doesn't mean EVERYONES view is murder. And, thus, you have no right to impose your views on other people, or tell them what to do with their own bodies. This should never have been an issue men are involved in anyway- it is not men's bodies we are talking about.

[tripimollee]

And, oh, Pale Rider, on the topic of illegal abortions, would you rather have educated young 'uns knowing the facts about contraceptives and knowing that if things go wrong that a safe, legal, clinical abortion is an option? Or would you rather see abstinence only education, where kids know diddly squat about birth control, and when something goes wrong and they feel the need for an abortion, they turn to coathanger abortions, leaving the poor young woman maimed, scarred, and possibly dead?

[syracusa]

Quote by: Pale RIder If I have been unduly harsh, for that I apologize. But this is serious business to me.

To me too. Now seriosuly - do you have a job? You wrote a novel again.

In case you haven't noticed, my actual DEBATING stoped a few posts ago. The emotional part came AFTER I decided I am done with the "logic" and "fact-based" debate.
Many of us presented to you our ethics, our logic, what WE DEEM important about human life, where our MORAL COMPASS lies - an ethic that is as pure and perfect to us as yours is to you.

You cannot argue with me that the cells 5 hours after conception are HUMAN cells. You know why? Not because you are wrong technically (the part that seems to make you so proud about your "logic"), but simply because this is not relevant in my book of ethics. There are other things about human life that I find much more important than where TECHNICALLY human life begins.

Punishing a teenage girl for her supposed "mistake", making her suffer for the rest of her life for her alleged "mistake" (sex is not a "mistake" by the way), basically SCREWING HER LIFE while she is fully aware of it - this is much more grave to me than stoping those cells from developing.

Those cells will not be aware that they are about to be stoped from developing, they will not feel fear and horrror about the future, they will not have sleepless nights, they will not be emotionally tortured, they will not have horrible remorses, they will not be stigmatized and looked down upon. They will NOT suffer.

If I were to use your dry logics, I would have you DEMONSTRATE to me how those cells suffer when they are stoped from being developed! But please...in medical, concrete terms - not in dogmatic terms (such as boo...hoo...hoo "they will never walk this wonderful Earth")! By the way, yes - based on your defintion, you are extremely dogmatic!

Can you demonstraye they (the cells) feel pain? Can you demonstrate they see the doctor's instrument coming towards them and they start thinking: "Shoot, I am about to be killed!?" Can you demonstrate they are emotionally tortured the moment they catch on that they are about to be terminated?

Can you demonstrate all these things to me? Because this is what MORALITY boils down to me. Of course YOU CAN'T! Well, too bad - because if you could, I would change my position too.

But this is not the point.

The cells will just stop developing and go back to where they were in the first place: NOTHINGNESS. It does NOT matter to me whether they are human cells or alien cells or dog cells. This is what you don't understand.
Clinging on this notion (that the cells are human, hence stoping them from developing automatically makes you a criminal) is neither ethical nor humanitarian to me.
It is a masked form of cruelty and misanthropy towards adult humans whom people like you love to regard as NASTY SINNERS for simply living their lives in society and not following some rigid rules that YOU like to impose on them.

Sorry. This is why you are far from having "won" with me. Our ethics are not on the same plane so your "perfect ethic" cannot be DEMONSTRATED to me, just like someone else said earlier.You could write 4 more novels, it will change NOTHING about my deep seated beliefs.

I will respectfully allow you to follow your ethics and you will respectfully allow me to follow mine.
You have no choice in this, you see?...

By the way...speaking of emotion...maybe that's what you need. Maybe you are a tad bit too "logical" and dry in your heart and have very little emotion in you. Go get some, it'll do you good.
Someone whose heart is "bleeding" for some cells yet is ready to crucify those "cells" as soon as they become adult humans, for their so-called "mistakes", "sins" or "moral deficiencies" ...trust me...that person IS NOT A GOOD MAN.

And you are NOT a good man, Mr. Rider!

[syracusa]

Quote by: SVMc Dear Pale Rider, ...however I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that since you feel so passionately that abortion is murder and an atrocity that you would like to see it ended. To that end we share the same goal but have a disagreement on the best method of stopping abortions. SVMc

SVMc,

On this part...although I agree with you - I must confess I don't agree 100%.
We can only make efforrts to reduce abortions to a very minimum - but to end it completely? No, we can't do that. There's just no way.

Many guys like Pale R. could say "Ok, you're right, let's start pumping money into sex ed and free contraceptives for everyone, and put in place ALL your propositons for preventing unwanted pregnancies; but once we do this, we ALSO outlaw abortions - especially now that people have everything available to them to prevent it.

This is not OK either. No matter the amount of effort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, the possibility that it will happen anyway will always remain.

What do you do with a married and perfectly fine couple who has ...say 3 kids, and a 4th would simply not be an option for their family? (And they have huge sex drives?).

What do you do with a perfectly fine woman who DOES want a child but she finds out that she is carrying a fetus with a serious birth defect and whose existence in this world would enslave both her and that child for the rest of their days?

Not everyone agrees with Pale Rider's mysanthropic and dark view that we are all supposed to suffer and struggle through life.

It is easy to say let's find the best way to end abortions altogether - but this is not the point.

The right of terminating a pregnancy should always be there for the woman.

If it's not - she will find that right on her own, one way or another. It's part of life, nobody can prevent them from manipulating their own bodies; and yes, life is not "fair".
Some fetuses get to become members of society, others don't. Some members of society get to have easy, breezy lives, others are forced to suffer and struggle until they die.
(As a matter of fact, I have serious doubts that the fetuses who get to become members of society are somehow better off than those who don't).

But if life is not fair on Earth, it will not be fair in the womb either.
When we reach a heavenly state where life is perfectly fair on Earth ...then we'll talk about it some more. Until then - terminating pregnancies will continue to happen, with or without the approval of Pale Riders, with or without a law in place, with or without social policy efforts to eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

Now THIS is a fact!!

[SVMc]

Quote by: Pale Rider Source?

Yes, source. When you post an assertion such as:

Quote by: Pale Rider All known fact demonstrates that an unborn, from the first moment of conception is a member of species h. sapiens.

I expect that you can show the "known facts that demonstrate" your assertion. If you cannot demonstrate your assertion it becomes opinion and should be prefaced by IMO or "all facts known to [you]". Likewise where you feel I have made assertions please feel free to ask for my own sources.

Quote by: Pale Rider With the exception of a few sterile hybrids, all living creatures belong to one species or another.

If we want to be scientifically specific species is not the only determination of the classification of living beings. There are currently seven classifications (Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus and species).

Quote by: Pale Rider Those that do belong to a species are members of that species for the duration of their existence.

Here is where we run into difficulty. No one is arguing that an existing human metamorphs into something else, the argument is about when does a human exist.

An embryo or fetus is a living organism of the species Homo sapiens. But so is every human egg and sperm cell. There is a difference between being genetically "human" and being a person in the moral sense. According to the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics, the possession of certain capacities has become widely accepted as necessary for a person to exist. Specifically, a nervous system capable of some level of self-awareness and conscious perception ("sapient cognitive awareness"). An embryo or fetus at the early stage at which abortions in Canada are customarily performed has no consciousness or self-awareness - its rudimentary body pre-dates a mind. According to the Canadian Medical Association's Committee on Ethics, it has not yet met the criteria for personhood that must be met by all other human beings. Source: The Status of the Human Fetus: A Discussion Document", Committee on Ethics, The Canadian Medical Association, August 1990. (c.f.footnote 4) Source: Maria Costa, Abortion: A Reference Handbook, ABC-CLIO Inc. Santa Barbara, CA, 1991, p.123. Source

You maintain that a human exists from the point of conception. However you have provided no proof to that extend. You have provided your opinion, until you back up that opinion then there is no proof.

I maintain that it is not a matter of scientific fact when life begins, the point at which life begins is sociological decision based on philosophy.

There is no scientific consensus as to when human life begins, a point made by such institutions as the National Academy of Sciences and the American Medical Association.These scientists say that the point at which a new person comes into existence cannot be scientifically discovered; it is a matter of philosophic opinion or religious belief, not scientific fact. It requires a judgment of what we consider a human being to be. For instance, does a human being consist of genetic information, or a disembodied soul, or a consciousness in a body? Or is it a separate, social being who has been born? Source: The Abortion Experience: Psychological and Medical Impact, ed. H.J. Osofsky and J.D. Osofsky (New York, 1973) and J.D.Osofsky and J.H. Osofsky, "The psychological reaction of patients to legalized abortion", American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1972, Vol.42, pp. 48-60; and J.D. Forrest and S.K. Henshaw, "What U.S. Women Think and Do About Contraception", Family Planning Perspectives, 15:157, 1983. Source

Biologists tell us that all life comes from pre-existing life. In other words, life does not begin, it is transmitted. The human egg and sperm are both living, human cells. At conception, two previously existing living things come together to form another living thing. Therefore, fertilization is not the beginning of human life, but is a significant step in its continuity. Source: Harold J. Morowitz and James S. Trefil, The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1992, pp.47-51, 62, 80, 119, 157-9. Source

Quote by: Pale Rider You are exactly as human today as you were when you were first concieved and if you live to be 125 you will not become more human by virtue of your age or stage of development.

Again this is a statement of opinion. If you have proof of this fact please present it, otherwise clarify as a personal stance.

Just like the egg and sperme are living begings that have the potential to form a human being, conception is not a one step process.

There is no "moment of conception"; conception is not a momentary event but a multi-step process which happens over a 24 hour period. Up to two weeks later, a twin zygote can form by breaking away from the first. Pregnancy is not considered to begin until the fertilized egg implants in the woman's uterus, approximately two weeks after fertilization. Source: Nan Chase, "Abortion: A Long History Can't Be Stopped", Vancouver Sun, May 1, 1989. Source: James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978. Source

Only genetic individuality - a set of inherited tendencies or predispositions - is present at conception. (Genetic individuality is a characteristic not only of humans but of all living things.) A human genotype is not the same as a person; tumours that grow in the human body carry as "unique" a "genetic blueprint" as does a new conception. Source:Source: James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, Oxford University Press, New York, 1978. Source: George Devereux, "A Typological Study of Abortion in 350 Primitive, Ancient and Pre-Industrial Societies", in Therapeutic Abortion, ed. Harold Rosen, Julian Press Inc., New York, 1954. Source

Quote by: Pale Rider If you were removed from your natural environment without lifesupport you would also die. Does that in some way make you less than human?

What you are clearly demonstrating is a recognition that there are fundamental biological differences between what is defined in law as a human and a zygote.

Quote by: Pale Rider And at that stage of development, an unborn has no need of feeling or awareness. To suggest that we are more or less human based on our chronological age, or natural stage of development is simply specious.

The state of awarness is one of the conditions on which we have traidionally differentiated a human from all other living organisms. Let's face it we are specious, we need to be for our own survival. It is not a crime to kill a cow for food, that is specious (see some PETA argumetns as to why some people see it as so), it is also specious that we do not punish someone who maliciously and with intent kills an animal in the same way that somone who maliciously and with intent kills a human being.

Quote by: Pale Rider Stem cells are simply that. Cells. Left to their own they will become a red blood cell, or a muscle cell, or a lymphocyte, or any number of other specialized form of cell. But a cell is all that it can ever be.

Again, opinion rather than fact, unless you can demonstrate the fact. The US governmen