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

[Chris the Chees]

The fact that you fail to see that the offspring of two human beings is a human being

I would like you to explain to me how an inanimate clump of cells is a human being.

A new DNA fingerprint is formed and a new life begins.

Considering that you clearly consider your self so have a superior understanding of biology than I do (and apparently anybody else), they you can explain to me how at the point of fertilisation the egg and sperm become a new sentient being. Especially when you consider the point of death, which is undisputedly brain death. If something is dead when it ceases to have brain activity, then perhaps you care to explain how a "baby" (as you wrongly call an embryo and foetus), at this stage is alive. It has no brain activity, because it has no brain, if it were severed from its mother, then it would undoubtedly be dead within a matter of seconds, with no capacity for independent life.

I have no more scruples about ending the existence of a foetus, which has no sentient existence or thought, than I do a group of cancerous cells which are also biologically alive, in that the cells grow, and respiration occurs.

Unless of course you are going to inform me of the Embryo’s soul then your biological argument collapses, at which point, I demand that you provide me with scientific evidence for the existence of a soul, to change that.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I would like you to explain to me how an inanimate clump of cells is a human being. Considerin g that you clearly consider your self so have a superior understanding of biology than I do, they you can explain to me how at the point of fetilisation the egg and sprim become life. Especially when you consider the point of death, which is undisputedly brain death. If something is dead when it ceases to have brain activity, then perhaps you care to explain how a "baby" (as you wrongly call an embryo and foetus), at this stage is alive. It has no brain activty, because it has no brain, if it were severed from its mother, then it would undoubtedly be dead within a matter of seconds, with no capacity for independant life. Unless of course you are going to inform me of the Embro's soul then your bioloical argument collapses, at which point, I demand that you provide me with scientific evidence for the existance of a soul.

First off, it is not an inanimate clump of cells. The steak that you purchase in the grocery is an inanimate clump of cells.

Explain to me how the point of fertilization, the point at which a new DNA fingerprint has been formed, the point at which a new individual begins growing, the point at which this new individual begins directing the operation of the mother's body is not the beginning of a new life.

I have presented enough referenced scientific quotes and opinion, I believe, to make my point. I do note, however, that referenced materials to bolster your point is starkly absent.

The death argument is nothing but a strawman designed to detract from the argument about when life begins. How a thing begins has little bearing upon how it ends. Lets get the beginning worked out between us, then we can discuss the end of life debate.

I never bring relgion into this discussion. If I couldn't win it without religion, I would not enter it. Science and fact is clearly in my corner.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees 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.

Actually chris, brain activity is present before the end of the 2nd month. You touch the child's hand with a probe, and its fingers close around it. Brain activity is present. What do you require, that it be capable of writing a thesis?

Abortion is not a real issue in the UK because the people voted on it. It is a product of your legislators. The people had their say. In this country, 9 black robed judges decided the issue for us and as a result, this has become the most contentious subject in our history besides slavery (which judges also decided upon). When the people decide, like it or not, the people have decided. When unelected, unaccountable people decide, however, it is a different matter entirely.

[Chris the Chees]

The steak that you purchase in the grocery is an inanimate clump of cells.

Yes, equally mindless and equally incapable of human thought.

I see no problem with abortion, pior to 5-6 months.

Abortion is not a real issue in the UK because the people voted on it. It is a product of your legislators. The people had their say. In this country, 9 black robed judges decided the issue for us and as a result, this has become the most contentious subject in our history besides slavery (which judges also decided upon). When the people decide, like it or not, the people have decided. When unelected, unaccountable people decide, however, it is a different matter entirely.

Then why do you not appeal to your president for a national refferendum?

Anyway the president chooses the judges, as i am aware, so surley he exerts some control over them.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Really? Do I have control over your testicles?

If you consider law that tells me things that I may or may not do with them to be "your" control, then you do. There are laws that say that I may not sell them for transplants and such. There are laws that prevent doctors from removing them should I decide that I don't want them if they are healthy and functioning.

I would never confuse the law to mean that "YOU" personally have any control over me at all. If I had a problem with the laws, then perhaps I would argue that I don't like the law, or that the law was wrong, but that "YOU" had any control over my body. No. That would be an emotional, stupid argument without basis in fact.

[voyager]

Of course we must save every egg that is fertilized. Where else would we get the next generation of soldiers to fight our imperialistic wars?

We are at one of those turning points in history where the cultural norms must be reexamined because they no longer meet the needs of current society. A Renaissance if you will. When does life begin, when does it end, are gays entitled to marrage, does religion mean anything to modern sociery and where do one persons right and anothers begin? All is open to debate.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees The steak that you purchase in the grocery is an inanimate clump of cells. Yes, equally mindless and equally incapable of human thought. I see no problem with abortion, pior to 5-6 months. Abortion is not a real issue in the UK because the people voted on it. It is a product of your legislators. The people had their say. In this country, 9 black robed judges decided the issue for us and as a result, this has become the most contentious subject in our history besides slavery (which judges also decided upon). When the people decide, like it or not, the people have decided. When unelected, unaccountable people decide, however, it is a different matter entirely. Then why do you not appeal to your president for a national refferendum? Anyway the president chooses the judges, as i am aware, so surley he exerts some control over them.

Actually chris, it is inanimate because it is dead. It is no longer exhibiting any characteristics that could be construed as life.

Didn't you say earlier that brainwaves were your benchmark? At 27 days, the unborn has all three sections of its brain and they are operational. The forebrain, or cerebral cortex is present. At 47 days, the first detectable brain waves are present. The fact that you benchmark brain activity but approve of abortion at 6 months seems to put your position in conflict.

And yes, the president does get to choose judges but no, he does not control them. The reason this debate is heating again is that we are expecting some supreme court judges to retire. President Bush is expected to replace one, and possibly two more before his term is complete. The last time Roe v Wade was challenged, it survived by one vote, and that one was questionable until the 11th hour. With a new judge or two, Roe v. Wade will be overturned and then the decision will go to the states. And all indications are that even the most liberal of states will not legalize abortion on demand. There will certainly be medical provisions, and possibly provisions for rape and incest, but abortion on demand will not pass here, and as a result, the pro choice crowd has become panicked and extremely irrational as evidenced by this debate.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: voyager Of course we must save every egg that is fertilized. Where else would we get the next generation of soldiers to fight our imperialistic wars? We are at one of those turning points in history where the cultural norms must be reexamined because they no longer meet the needs of current society. A Renaissance if you will. When does life begin, when does it end, are gays entitled to marrage, does religion mean anything to modern sociery and where do one persons right and anothers begin? All is open to debate.

So, if the possibility that a child may grow up to be a soldier, it should be killed?

[Chris the Chees]

No Pale RIder, I said capability for human thiought, a sentient being, etc. Enough brain waves to control a heart beat, is not my idea of human thought. Brain waves was mearly an example. I would also not consider a person who has had a serious illness or accident and suffered sever brain dammage, and has no chanse recovery, and incapable of further thought, in essance a mindless living corpse alive. Indeed the recent case which has been floating about the news is a prime example, of my view on the subject. Though starvation was probably not a good PR move.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Ummmm.... NOT. Hitler was an anti-choicer, just like you. In fact, he was the father of the "right to life" movement

Maybe you should read some actual history before you regurgitate the propaganda that the pro choice movenent provides. Germany had a long history of not allowing abortion. When hitler came to power, he authorized abortion to all "unfit" germans and to jews. Later, after the war began he not only authorized abortion and sterilization of occupied countries, he authorized abortion for all germans as well.

Where did your information come from? Margaret Sanger?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees No Pale RIder, I said capability for human thiought, a sentient being, etc. Enough brain waves to control a heart beat, is not my idea of human thought. Brain waves was mearly an example. I would also not consider a person who has had a serious illness or accident and suffered sever brain dammage, and has no chanse recovery, and incapable of further thought, in essance a mindless living corpse alive. Indeed the recent case which has been floating about the news is a prime example, of my view on the subject. Though starvation was probably not a good PR move.

Why do you keep equating injured, incapacitated people to vibrant, living growing humans? My guess is that you find yourself quite unable to demonstrate in any real way that unborns are neither human nor alive, so you must resort to making immaterial references to humans at the end of their lives rather than stick to the science as we know it dealing with the beginning of life.

And I thought that we had established that "your opinion" or "your idea" is really inconsequential when placed in context with fact. I know that mine is. Do you have any fact to present?

By the way, what exactly constitutes "human" thought. Are newborns capable of it? And what was it about a 7 inch trip down a birth canal that made it possible. When you enter into the realm of esoterics such as "thought" you also make valid arguments about souls. It is best to stick to that which is definable by science.

[Chris the Chees]

A clear parralell exists, both are incapble of human thought, neither are sentient living thinking being, and neither can be called alive. As such I have little time for people who claim that we are exterminating human life.

And I thought that we had established that "your opinion" or "your idea" is really inconsequential when placed in context with fact

No, all you have estabilished, is that you are unable to understand the difference between your own opinions and fact.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder 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 thier point. Excuse me if I am wrong but since I started here the only person who has used any sort of evidence was SMVc, and his evidence bolstered my position. The fact that they disagree with me does not make them shallow or stupid. The fact that they can present no supporting evidence to validate the opinions that they hold so fiercely does.

May I recommend that you employ a different modus operandus to reply. Your use of quoting from anti-choice materials is having little success. Perhaps you could explain how you arrived at your current anti-choice beliefs. In fact, you might even employ your beliefs in your particular religion and how your faith has shaped your beliefs.

I personally would be interested in finding out how you would feel about your body being considered public domain.

I would like to make a comment to you, to dissuade you from ever entertaining the hope that perhaps you will change my personal views on the matter, and it is this: Until pregnancy takes place outside of a woman's internal organs, there is nothing to discuss, as internal organs are the domain of the person whose internal organs they are. When pregnancy takes place outside of a woman's internal organs (say, in a laboratory receptacle), you should assume that the whole issue of your being anti-choice is moot. At such a point, the only issue to discuss would be where ova is being obtained, as I would not volunteer any. As for sperm, you can donate as much of it as you desire. :)

So please cease wishing to change my mind. It is an impossibility.

[Pale RIder]

So you see a connection between a perfectly healthy, developing human that has not reached the point of needing to think and one who more mature and has lost the ability to think due to illness or injury? That is a stretch, but I can see how it is necessary in order for you to justify your position. If I had to reach so far, I might reconsider my position.

By the way, got any scientific documentation to support that connection, or is this just something that you have made out of whole cloth?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder If you consider law that tells me things that I may or may not do with them to be "your" control, then you do. There are laws that say that I may not sell them for transplants and such. There are laws that prevent doctors from removing them should I decide that I don't want them if they are healthy and functioning. I would never confuse the law to mean that "YOU" personally have any control over me at all. If I had a problem with the laws, then perhaps I would argue that I don't like the law, or that the law was wrong, but that "YOU" had any control over my body. No. That would be an emotional, stupid argument without basis in fact.

Fact is, you are entitled to either keep or remove your testicles even in the U.S. You have full control over them. We females will have full control over our internal organs. End of story. Again. Or should I say, still?

[Rave7pt0]

There you have it...

This is a pointless discussion, because the people in here are not interested in honest dialogue -- they are interested in their agenda, and justifying their personal decisions, wrong or right.

Debates are for education, people, not right-fighting. Grow up.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder Maybe you should read some actual history before you regurgitate the propaganda that the pro choice movenent provides. Germany had a long history of not allowing abortion. When hitler came to power, he authorized abortion to all "unfit" germans and to jews. Later, after the war began he not only authorized abortion and sterilization of occupied countries, he authorized abortion for all germans as well. Where did your information come from? Margaret Sanger?

I've provided you with quotes from Hitler himself as well as his legislation passed to prohibit abortion (as well as outlaw homosexuality). Margaret Sanger has nothing to do with writing books re the Third Reich. The information is there for you to peruse. As I said in my previous quote, Hitler was pretty much the father of your current pro-life movement. AND he was Christian. Would you like me to re-post the Hitler quotes and the data regarding his legislation prohibiting abortion?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri Fact is, you are entitled to either keep or remove your testicles even in the U.S. You have full control over them. We females will have full control over our internal organs. End of story. Again. Or should I say, still?

The fact is that you are wrong. Removal of healthy organs is considered mutilation, and the laws that govern medicine in this country expressly forbid mutilation. What you think, in no way negates what is.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Rave7pt0 There you have it... This is a pointless discussion, because the people in here are not interested in honest dialogue -- they are interested in their agenda, and justifying their personal decisions, wrong or right. Debates are for education, people, not right-fighting. Grow up.

I don't know if you're aware of the fact that when you become incensed at the idea that your testicles being controlled, while having no conscience about suggesting that my uterus be controlled, makes me angry. You're completely out of touch with the whole reason why the premise of anti-choice is wrong, aren't you?

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Pale RIder The fact is that you are wrong. Removal of healthy organs is considered mutilation, and the laws that govern medicine in this country expressly forbid mutilation. What you think, in no way negates what is.

You're misinformed. The removal of testicles is completely permissible. Transsexuals do it all the time, legally, and in hospitals in the U.S. Once again I repeat. Others should not have control over your testicles or my uterus. Legislation plays no part in that and should never play a part in that.