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

[tripimollee]

Quote by: Pale RIder What are you doing trippimollee, puting your hands over your ears and eyes and shouting la la la la at the top of your voice to keep from knowing the truth. How you view a thing in no way effects the reality of a thing. Tell you what, why don't you try "seeing" a wasps nest full of wasps as a daisy, then pick it and take a big old sniff. My guess is that "seeing" it as a daisy will have zero effect on the reality of what it is. Same is true for unborn children. You can tell yourself whatever you want, but it in no way changes the reality of the child. It still dies. Responsibility is not having sex at all except in a comitted relationship or outside one if you are prepared to care for the child that may result. Your parent's must have failed in their responsibility of teaching responsibility to you. And fail safe birth control will not be created until there is an economic incentive for it. When Roe is overturned, the incentive will exist and my guess is that within 2 years a perfect birth control method will be on the market. As long as you can just kill the child for any reason, many people would not bother even if a perfect contraceptive existed. When one is facing charges for killing unborns, then the incentive will exist to act responsibly.

First of all, your logic is deeply flawed. You obviously don't know women very well if you think they would choose an abortion over fail safe birth control. Second of all, DO NOT bring my parents into this. That was a disgusting statement you made about them not bringing me up well- they brought me up wonderfully, which is why I am doing so incredibly well in life right now. Thirdly, THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THIS ARGUMENT. There is your view versus my view. Do NOT tell me I am wrong because I don't agree with you. You are no longer making valid arguments, you seemed to have forgotten how a LONG time ago. If you have nothing to say anymore besides throwing bitter ad hominems at me, then I relieve myself of this thread as it is a waste of time and dignity. Your petty words are beneath me- I believe that I have won this debate. Thanks!

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: tripimollee - they brought me up wonderfully, which is why I am doing so incredibly well in life right now.

Which explains why you got knocked up by a guy whom you are not in a comitted relationship with and are preparing to kill an innocent human being. Yep. wonderful job. What do you do for an encore? Pull the wings off of some butterflies? Poison some kittens? Get knocked up again so you can kill another one?

[Rave7pt0]

I feel that my question has been dodged, so let me restate it:

Since the point at which life begins is debatable, isn't it possible that it begins at conception or shortly thereafter? Wouldn't aborting a fetus be murder, if and only if that were true?

Also, "It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees," is one of my favorite quotes as well... but Emiliano Zapata, the Mexican revolutionary who started the group later known as the Zapatistas said it.

edit:

Just did some research, turns out Dolores Ibarruri did indeed say that in "La Pasionaria," a radio speech on 18 July 1936. She got it from Zapata who had been killed about 17 years ealier on Apirl 10th, 1919, by a mexican general.

This isn't an issue of freedom though, this is an issue of when life does or does not begin.

[Chris the Chees]

Which explains why you got knocked up by a guy whom you are not in a comitted relationship with and are preparing to kill an innocent human being.

While sidelining the very suspect insults in that post for later discussion, I wish to focus on that statement. I fail to see how a clump of cells, with no animated thought or brain activity can be considered a human being, any more than sperm can be. An embryo/foetus has potential to become a human being, it is however, in my opinion, not a human being. I think that this is a very important distinction to make.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: syracusa These are not people you debate or argue with. These are simply people to defeat without dignifying them with too many warnings, direct explanations, debates or anything of this sort. I kind of like his naive (and as usual, absolutely cocksure ) view of how ALL children of righties will be righties themselves and how the left will be completely defeated in this country...

Not only are you shallow, you apparently have trouble reading for comprehension. I said that children tend to grow up in the political tradition of their parents. One really wouldn't expect for you, or people like you to be able to comprehend what you read, otherwise you would not continue in your wrong position.

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri It's vital that men protect themselves, so that their sperm doesn't impregnate a woman. Don't you agree? After all, males are the ones giving up their sperm forever. It's their call. Either they lose their sperm, or they don't donate any.

Unfortunately, there are only two options for men today. A condom which has a 10% failure rate and vasectomy. Perhaps when Roe is stricken down, that perfect contraceptive will be something that men can take. Until that day, however, the onus is upon women. The best prevention is simply not to have sex outside of a comitted relationship.

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri I agree with you that this person is probably a bit *off*. I wonder, tho, are all pro-lifers a bit off? And if so, must we endure their insanity without talking back?

Interesting. If I were railing at you that God was going to send you to hell, or that the angel of death would deal with you or some such thing, then I suppose that I could agree that such an argument would put me in the category of a "bit off". But I am arguing with scientific fact. Referenced, scientific fact. What are you arguing with? Self righteous spew with no basis in fact? And you call me a bit off? Shallow. Very shallow. And isn't it telling that you would call referenced scientific argument insanity, when you are unable to reference anything to support your side of the argument?

Quote by: syracusa Obviously he ENJOYS spitting out all that garbage and he gets a kick out of this whole thing. As you may have noticed, he never fails to respond to each and every post with his incredible "logic" and "infallibility", even after the debate itself has long been consumated. And that includes posts that are NOT addressed to him. That says something about his psychology and state of mind.

Science is garbage...we have heard it from the vacuous syracusa. And the very magnatude of your stupidity makes response irresistable. I can just picture the two of you talking over a cup of coffee.

syracusa - " Me, me, it is all about me!!" I am the most important. What I want is all that matters. It is all about me I tell you.

doloresIbarruri - "No it is all about me! I must control my body, even though I have no control at all over my life, or my emotions. Me Me I tell you, it is all about me.

syracusa - "Lets compromize, it is all about us. We should be allowed to be as irresponsible as we care to. What is a new life when it is placed in the context of what we want? We are the center of the universe. We, above all others should be able to decide the life or death of a child that we were responsible for the creation of. It is all about us. We are women, hear us roar, watch us kill, see the blood of 40 million innocents drip from our fingers...IT IS ALL ABOUT US!!!

Oddly enough, this just about sums up women on the pro death side. You believe that what you want trumps any and everything. Nothing, not even an innocent life is more important than what you want.

And the men on the pro death side. Guys who either don't know right from wrong, or are willing to ignore right and wrong and say whatever they need to say in order to get in your pants. Or men who are just so weak that they are unable to form an opinion one way or another because someone might be offended.

How about an actual argument? Some sort of actual provable fact to support your position. Do you have anything besides shallow, vacuous, emotional opinion?

[Chris the Chees]

Alright Pale RIder, that’s enough of the personal insults, if you would be so kind. I realise that this is a very heated debate, but I think that it would be a better debate, if it were insult free. Just because somebody disagrees with you does not necessarily make them shallow or stupid.

Please, could you also respond to the point I tried to raise with you?

[Rave7pt0]

I'll give it a shot Chris, by asking you a question first: What is your definition of a "human being"? That's where we have to start.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 I'll give it a shot Chris, by asking you a question first: What is your definition of a "human being"? That's where we have to start.

Personally, i do not believe that a clump of thoughtless growing cells is a human life, in anyway shape of form, at least no more than a tuma. I also don't think that a foetus in its early stages, is by any stretch of the imagination a human life. However, when you get to the stages, where you have major brain activity, certainly in the last couple of months, then the foetus is certainly alive.

In the Uk we have an abortion cut off point. Personally, I think that this is the most acceptable state of affairs. Though of course it would be better all round if abortion was less common. But, of course this requires great social change and time, I am no conservative, far from it, but I think that family values, in some cases could be a point that society should give a little more time for.

[Rave7pt0]

Ok, so you say that human brain activity constitutes human life.

What if we are more than just our brains? What if our brain is merely a conduit for something greater, or at least something slightly more abstract?

In that case, would it make sense that a person could be alive without significant brain activity?

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 Ok, so you say that human brain activity constitutes human life. What if we are more than just our brains? What if our brain is merely a conduit for something greater, or at least something slightly more abstract? In that case, would it make sense that a person could be alive without significant brain activity?

I am an athiest, as such I do not believe that the point you are hinting at have any merit. If a candidate for abortion is a sentient life form, as in its brain is alive and capable of thought, then it is wrong to kill it. I have little or no compassion for a mindless clump of cells, whether people believe in the existance of a "soul" or not. There is scientific evidence for brain activity, which can be measured, there is no such evidence for the soul, and until there is, I will dismiss it out of hand.

[Rave7pt0]

Well, that's fair enough I suppose (even though by saying "scientific evidence" you are basically presupposing the nonexistance of a soul), but I did not say anything about a soul, actually. I just asking about some factor that we aren't necessarily intellectually aware of at this time... like a hypothetical.

If you really want evidence for what you might think of as a soul, it's there -- you just have to look. I've yet to meet a person who couldn't see the evidence once I told them where to look. Maybe you'd like to try... get ahold of me through an IM service.

[Chris the Chees]

even though by saying "scientific evidence" you are basically presupposing the nonexistance of a soul

Yes, I am. I m a full time student, and I am taught to deal with facts, to generate arguments based on evidence. I am sorry, but I am not willing to accept a theory unless it is backed up with some kind of evidence. If somebody is comes up with some evidence which results in the revision of current thought, then by all means I will change my view. However, until that occurs I am not prepaired to accept it as a legitimate theory.

I just asking about some factor that we aren't necessarily intellectually aware of at this time... like a hypothetical.

Well as far as I am conserned worring about hypothetical questions, rather than scientific reality is a waste of time, interesting perhaps, but not something to base ones opinion or life around.

it's there -- you just have to look

So I am told, by religious friends, however no amount of looking will change opinion to fact, or emotion into material reality.

I've yet to meet a person who couldn't see the evidence once I told them where to look.

I have friends who also make similar bold claims, and I have yet to meet a person so far who has convised me to accept irrational unfounded belief.

[Rave7pt0]

Heh, that's kind of funny... I don't know if you can see the irony in that, but I guess we'll continue this tangent in PMs.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder This argument might have some merit if there weren't dozens of laws on the books already that tell you what you may and may not do with your body. Including your organs. And gender has nothing to do with it. The laws that govern your body and organs also apply to me.

Really? Do I have control over your testicles?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder And as to nazism, hitler was a big pro choice guy. In fact, in hitler's germany it was aboriton on demand paid for by the sate. If you are going to argue this subject, it would behoove you to actually learn something before you start. I can understand how you would avoid it because it is very difficult to do actual research and still hold an indefensible position, but none the less, if you actually know something, at least you can "sound" intelligent.

Ummmm.... NOT.

Hitler was an anti-choicer, just like you. In fact, he was the father of the "right to life" movement:

"On May 26, 1933, two pieces of penal legislation . . . prohibit[ed] the availability of abortion facilities and services, . . . resulting in a 65 percent increase in yearly convictions between 1932 and 1938, when their number reached almost 7,000. From 1935 on, doctors and midwives were obliged to notify the regional State Health Office of every miscarriage. Women's names and addresses were then handed over to the police, who investigated the cases suspected of actually being abortions. In 1936 Heinrich Himmler, head of all police forces and the SS, established the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion, and in 1943, after three years of preparation by the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice, the law entitled Protection of Marriage, Family, Motherhood called for the death penalty in 'extreme cases'."

What's more, Hitler's Third Reich sounds remarkably like the right wingers of today:

'As German women saw their legal rights in the public sphere restricted there were also government organizations established to control sexuality and reproduction. The National Socialists attacked the Magnus Hirschfeld's Institute for Sexual Science that advocated "less rigid sexual identities" as this ran contrary to Third Reich belief.' 19
'The link between sexual behaviour and the control of female reproduction is evident with the establishment of the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion by the Gestapo Chief, Heinrich Himmler.' 20

(Bridenthal, Biology, 276.
Smith, Lives, 466. )

He was also a Christian.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at
last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for
the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand
years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever
before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood
upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be
cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting
rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I
have also a duty to my own people." -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12
April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April
1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press,
1942)

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own
altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the
heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its
apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute
presupposition." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

"Only in the steady and constant application of force lies the very
first prerequisite for success. This persistence, however, can always
and only arise from a definite spiritual conviction. Any violence
which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering
and uncertain." -Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 I feel that my question has been dodged, so let me restate it: Since the point at which life begins is debatable, isn't it possible that it begins at conception or shortly thereafter? Wouldn't aborting a fetus be murder, if and only if that were true? Also, "It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees," is one of my favorite quotes as well... but Emiliano Zapata, the Mexican revolutionary who started the group later known as the Zapatistas said it. edit: Just did some research, turns out Dolores Ibarruri did indeed say that in "La Pasionaria," a radio speech on 18 July 1936. She got it from Zapata who had been killed about 17 years ealier on Apirl 10th, 1919, by a mexican general. This isn't an issue of freedom though, this is an issue of when life does or does not begin.

La Pasionaria said it. There's no proof that Zapata said it. However, I'm very surprised you like that quote. I kinda thought you had the same degree of respect for yourself as others had for you. :-P

[syracusa]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Me? I agree with you that this person is probably a bit *off*. I wonder, tho, are all pro-lifers a bit off? And if so, must we endure their insanity without talking back? Your account of the woman who, after 5 male children, is now on her way to the 6th male child with another husband, unhappy about it, but unwilling to abort, is probably the story of many, many women in the U.S. A lot of women have been made to feel guilty about wanting abortion. Some women are not as strong as others. I think some people buckle quite easily under propaganda and manipulation. Even some who don't, and aren't easily swayed by manipulation and propaganda, can be subject to it to some small degree. Case in point, my sister. My sister has a genius I.Q., which is what makes what happened to her all the more interesting. However, my sister fell in love with and married a born-again Christian and became one herself. For over a decade she was involved in born-again churches that expoused only extremist, right wing, faux pro-life ideas of the type that adore the death penalty and believe all human tissue is a walking, talking human being. My sister voted Republican for years. She was the poster child for those people that walked around gyn-ob clinics with a sign that said, "Abortion doctor murders here!", and was the first one in line at the polls to vote for a right wing looney. Then one day, she gave birth to a child that had a disability, and she began to feel deep down inside of her what it feels to be disadvantaged in a society of right wingers. She saw the predatoriness of right wingers, pro-lifers and Christians. She's so left-wing now, that she's to the left of me (and that's really saying something!). But my point was, that if she could be fooled into believing all the hogwash spewed by the right wing, then those who are less intelligent than she can far more easily be fooled. I've asked her what she now thinks of those she once agreed with and was a part of. She says that the right wing, pro-life mentality group is like a country club. They believe themselves to be better people than those who aren't a part of that. She says they believe that they work one another and themselves up into a frenzy of, "US VERSUS THEM." Once into that us vs. them mentality, she says, they question NOTHING. Instead, they begin to limit themselves to reading, listening and following those individuals who promote only and exclusively the ideas in that "us vs. them." Further, she says that the "us vs. them" country club is like one big love fest. They help one another, love one another, and the more they're into that philosophy, the more they applaud each other. She remembers once, while she still attended one of those born-again churches, her questioning why religious people would be discussing politics inside church, and reminding everyone that church was not supposed to be a political caucus. She received silence and some highly disapproving looks. Later, one man even took her and her husband aside and asked why she was asking such questions, didn't she know that this country was in trouble, being sunk by those evil "them." It reminds me of Jonestown, Jim Jones and the Kool-Aid. Scary sh*t.

Lord help and God Forbid. (I am NOT an atheist by the way, but I respect the postion of those who do not/canot bring themselves to believe in God).

But the so-called pro-lifers, die hard right-wingers and anyone in that loony sphere are indeed a scary bunch of people. Nothing to do with goodness or God, all to do with darkness, bitterness and the wish to punish others for their 'sins' or less then perfect 'choices'.

This is why I don't engage in debates with them. Not because I am crushed by their "infallible logic" (as they love so much to believe) but because I am as scared by their psychology as I am sickened by it. Who engages in debates with mentally disturbed cases?

The desire to control others and to force everyone else in society to follow YOUR OWN standards - this has got to have some really F***-ed up psychological roots.
Nothing good has ever come out of this mental state in the history of mankind. And I mean...nothing.

I am from Eastern Europe, since you asked. Yeah...that country where women's mortality rates had sky rocketed when that mental case dictator outlawed abortions. I actually know this old couple - close friends of my grandparents - who have been going to the cemetery for 45+ years now, every single week of their life(!!!), after their only daughter died from an illegal abortion.
They have a family grave right next to the place my grandmother is burried.

The daughter died 40+ years ago (from the illegal abortion), then two years ago her mom passed (after a life time of weekly visits to her daughter's grave)...and now...last year, when I went to visit my grandma's grave, I met the gentleman again at the cemetery... still there, putting roses on his daughter's grave and now his wife's too.
After 45 years. Every single week.

And they tell me these people's loss equals the loss of a bunch of friggin' unaware cells.
Insanity and loss of touch with reality - taken to a whole new level.

Why? Because some mental cases decide that women have no rights over their own bodies and that the government has the right to force them to give birth to a child they simply do not want to give birth to.
I suppose that to this people, it also irrelevant the fact that the woman is forced to go through terrible physical suffering (this is what labor is!), AGAINST their will.
One tiny step away from torture, of not tortute in its most pure form.
And they have the nerve to talk about "human rights"!

It is one thing FOR ME TO AGREE to suffer, yell and scream in order to pop a baby out of my vagina because I WANT that baby; it is a completely different thing for others to force me to go through all that suffering...in order to what? Not only to MAKE ME give birth to a child I simply do not want, but to also have the rest of my life completely destroyed in the process, while we're at it.

Oh...how wonderful, compassionate and full of righteousness these people are. They literally make me vomit. Believe me...these are major mental cases and they must be dealt with accordingly. Not by debate, not by having their provocations answered, but with sophisticated strategies worthy of the loony place.

Your sister was lucky because her brain cells allowed her eventually to pull herself out of that nightmarish way ot thinking (maybe because that shitty situation happened to her? who knows...).
But like you said, others are not so lucky - and neither are those who are forced to live in a land run by such nutjobs.

This is why - AGAIN! - I will be right back to Europe when the red psychopaths take over.
If they do.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: syracusa ...Why? Because some mental cases decide that women have no rights over their own bodies and that the government has the right to force them to give birth to a child they simply do not want to give birth to....

Exactly! That's the principal issue in all this. The right to one's own body. If one cannot have ownership of one's own body, one is not free, but a slave.

Quote by: syracusa ...Your sister was lucky because her brain cells allowed her eventually to pull herself out of that nightmarish way ot thinking (maybe because that shitty situation happened to her? who knows...).

Yes... she went thru much with her child. She joined a group of moms with disabled kids, and met many mothers of children who were disabled. She saw that the poorer ones relied on help from the govt. for therapy and such. While this was going on, her born-again church and all other churches were busy as bees voting for politicians whose plan was to cut down and/or do away with all govt. help for the disabled. Needless to say, that was like a kick in the gut. It sparked in her an interest in really analyzing who were these church people who could claim to be as loving as Christ, while wanting to deny needy, disabled children the financial help for therapy. She no longer goes to a church. She says there are no churches left in the U.S. that are sincere places. She says they're all predatory, except for the Quakers, the Mennonites, the Amish, and a couple of other churches she tolerates. :-)

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees While sidelining the very suspect insults in that post for later discussion, I wish to focus on that statement. I fail to see how a clump of cells, with no animated thought or brain activity can be considered a human being, any more than sperm can be. An embryo/foetus has potential to become a human being, it is however, in my opinion, not a human being. I think that this is a very important distinction to make.

The fact that you fail to see that the offspring of two human beings is a human being, at whatever stage of development that it may be is nothing more than a failing on your part.

Your reference to sperm demonstrates that if you had even a basic grasp of developmental biology, you, in all likelyhood, not fail to see the obvious. Sperm cells can clearly be identified by any lab as belonging to the body from which they came. They are unique in that they only have half a set of chromosomes, and as such are correctly identified as having the potential to create new life, but beyond that, they are no more consequential than fingernail clippings to the body from which they came. The same can be said for egg cells.

But when they get together, and each contribute their respective half set of chromosomes, both sperm and egg cease to exist. A new DNA fingerprint is formed and a new life begins. Contrary to what the pro choicers like to spew, there is little if any debate within the actual sicentific community as to when life actually begins. The debate is on the Oprah show by scientists who, in all likelyhood, are appearing on Oprah because they lack the scientific talent, and depth of knowledge to actually make a living in genuine research.

Refer to: STEDMAN’S CONCISE MEDICAL DICTIONARY FOR THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS , SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE , DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN, LOUIS HELLMAN ET AL., WILLIAMS OBSTETRICS , T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY , E. BLECHSCHMIDT, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE.

and then explain to me how important your opinion is to the reality of science. Explain how you can hold the opinion that it is not human being in the face of the actual text books that are used in medical and scientific education. Explain to me how you can hold the opinion that it is not human in the face of some of the greatest minds in the scientific community. You may as well look at a globe, or photos from space and proclaim that in your opinion, the world is still flat and rests on the back of a turtle. In the face of scientific fact, your opinion holds very little weight....and THAT is a very important distinction to make.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Alright Pale RIder, that’s enough of the personal insults, if you would be so kind. I realise that this is a very heated debate, but I think that it would be a better debate, if it were insult free. Just because somebody disagrees with you does not necessarily make them shallow or stupid. Please, could you also respond to the point I tried to raise with you?

Thank you for your concern. But I would direct you back to the point at which I entered this debate to determine where, and by whom the insult started. It should also be noted that unlike the pro choice side, I continue to debate and reinforce my point rather than simply revert to insult. So, perhaps if you had done your research you would both not be holding the opinion that the offspring of two humans is not human, and that I am somehow responsible for bringing insult into this debate.

By the way, I love it when people disagree with me. That is why I come here. Intelligent people, however, use fact and logic, and evidence to make thi