Debates
18 Sep 07
19 Sep 07
Here's a thought: Maybe this is not the kind of issue the Federal government should be legislation about.
What does this issue have to do with running the country?
It's just a conveniently useless issue for Dems/Reps to use to debate over so WE don't hold them responsible for their intended job:
Defense
Economy
Infrastructure
Since neither parties does very good with the basics, its very helpful for them to stay far away from those topics and really hone in on things that have no relevance to government: abortion, death penalty, same sex marriage.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallI dunno, first off, there are important issues as regards the defence of rights, be they the rights of the motehr or of the unborn child, so I think that in the case of the US, it should be a federal issue. As for the thread itself however, I feel the OP was referring to a more general debate of whether it is right or wrong, full stop, not whether it is something that only the US needs to worry about.
Here's a thought: Maybe this is not the kind of issue the Federal government should be legislation about.
What does this issue have to do with running the country?
It's just a conveniently useless issue for Dems/Reps to use to debate over so WE don't hold them responsible for their intended job:
Defense
Economy
Infrastructure
Since neither partie ...[text shortened]... n on things that have no relevance to government: abortion, death penalty, same sex marriage.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by agrysonI cannot say that only the "individual genetic material that qualifies the fetus as human, and nothing else" as that is too vague.
Ok, so if it's the individual genetic material that qualifies the foetus as human, and nothing else. (i.e. the moment the male and female gametes fuse and their DNA crosslinks to form an original human genetic structure) what about the rythm method of contraception?
It doesn't stop the formation of fertilized gametes, it just times that fertilization so th ...[text shortened]... g more than an independant human genome is a very shaky base on which to define humanity.
I am arguing that human life begins at conception. At that moment, the unborn baby has it's complete genetic make-up. It is a unique individual. Right after conception the egg begins dividing into many cells. Since this egg has it's own genetic make-up and it is a "system of itself" where cells are dividing by itself. Before three weeks are up, there are nerve cells etc.
I am not against the rythm method as it is a form of Natural Family Planning rather then an artificial means.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSo you think that killing the babies of "stupid" people is a better solution than educating people so that they don't do as many stupid things? I believe that Oprah Winfrey's mother was about 14 when Oprah was born. Should Oprah have been aborted?
There are too many people in the world.....many people are stupid. Women who get pregnant with a kid they don't want are stupid, Stupid parents produce stupid kids.
Abortion = less stupid people, and more air for us still here.....Q.E.D
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundSo , in your view, unless someone adopts babies that their opinion on abortion is meaningless? How about this: Unless you've been an aborted fetus, then you have no right to defend abortion.
What is this about abortion, why not use the money used to look after these unwanted children, and spend it looking after the unwanted children that are already here ?
Look after the children that are here properly, before you try to prevent a woman from having a child that she doesn't want.
When you've adopted a few kids, then come back and you may have a bit more of an argument.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallDefending the rights of innocent citizens (in this case, unborn babies) isn't an issue for the federal government?
Here's a thought: Maybe this is not the kind of issue the Federal government should be legislation about.
What does this issue have to do with running the country?
It's just a conveniently useless issue for Dems/Reps to use to debate over so WE don't hold them responsible for their intended job:
Defense
Economy
Infrastructure
Since neither partie ...[text shortened]... n on things that have no relevance to government: abortion, death penalty, same sex marriage.
20 Sep 07
Have any women posted on this thread? I'll stick up for women and say it is absolutely their body and their right to do what they want. Males: how terrifying is the thought of having a creature grow in your stomach for 9 months only to have to be entirely responsible for it in every way for the next X amount of years of its life? Obviously child birth is a beautiful thing, but not when people are unprepared for something that requires job security, a home, and understanding of the commitment it takes. What about when women are raped??? What about when the boyfriend/husband disappears? Really, take a second to think about the moment a woman faces when she learns for the first time she is unintentionally pregnant, and the new direction her life must go. Men, I don't think it's possible for us to have that type of feeling ever.
Plus, I've been responsible for at least 4 abortions myself! 😉
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84I think your argument is sound up to a point but the question remains exactly what that point is. Your arguments make just as much sense for post birth but I think few people would agree with it.
Have any women posted on this thread? I'll stick up for women and say it is absolutely their body and their right to do what they want. Males: how terrifying is the thought of having a creature grow in your stomach for 9 months only to have to be entirely responsible for it in every way for the next X amount of years of its life? Obviously child birth ...[text shortened]... t type of feeling ever.
Plus, I've been responsible for at least 4 abortions myself! 😉
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by WheelyBut there's a massive difference between pre and post birth. Like the prefix implies the baby has literally not been born yet. People are talking about the point at which the fetus gets human rights and I'll offer this: what really separates a human being from animals is our conscioussness, mental capacity, memory, etc. In the early stages of birth the fetus has none. No memories, no understanding of where it is, why it's there etc. People make equivalent the "murder" of a fetus and an adult and I think this is the reason for me it's so different. Nobody's going to accuse me of murder if I eat yogurt, even though that is live bacteria culture! 🙄 But really, between the necessity of abortion at times and for the reason I explained, and foremost because it's someone else's body we're talking about, I'm all for them.
I think your argument is sound up to a point but the question remains exactly what that point is. Your arguments make just as much sense for post birth but I think few people would agree with it.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by The Dude 84I think that it is good that you can be proud of such things, most people get to worked up over abortion. It really is quite cool to have one... very in vogue lately... I relate it to driving a prius... save the planet! I think you are due at least 4 carbon credits... have you received them yet?
Plus, I've been responsible for at least 4 abortions myself! 😉
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerWoman's body = woman's choice until the fetus can survive on it's own outside the mother's womb.
Defending the rights of innocent citizens (in this case, unborn babies) isn't an issue for the federal government?
That's our law.
In my opinion, difficult morality questions like this one have no place in the Fed. It should be left to the State, that way people on either side of the equation will have places they can live (or go).
Trying to outlaw abortions across the board has many negative consequences.
At some point in the near future we are going to have to step back from our belief that "every life is sacred". Every life is a life, and each life has a cost, and someone has to pay that cost.
If the parents cannot bear the burden, the state (us) should not make the claim that it can bear the burden via proxy for the citizens through taxes.
So, there you have it. I don't think it's the Federal government's job to tax citizens for every unwanted pregnancy that occurs in the US.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallYour right, I would rather see that tax money go to saving the rain forest or something worth while... like a panda bear. The panda bear fetus is very, very important.
Woman's body = woman's choice until the fetus can survive on it's own outside the mother's womb.
That's our law.
In my opinion, difficult morality questions like this one have no place in the Fed. It should be left to the State, that way people on either side of the equation will have places they can live (or go).
Trying to outlaw abortions across the ...[text shortened]... l government's job to tax citizens for every unwanted pregnancy that occurs in the US.
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by eagleeye222001But at the moment of conception, you have a single cell with a single and individual genetic make-up. It so happens that this is a human cell, with the potential to become a fully fledged and productive member of society. That much I understand (if I'm not mistaken, that's what you mean, the cell has the potential and that that potential is in and of itself precious enough to defend as much as any other human life).
I cannot say that only the "individual genetic material that qualifies the fetus as human, and nothing else" as that is too vague.
I am arguing that human life begins at conception. At that moment, the unborn baby has it's complete genetic make-up. It is a unique individual. Right after conception the egg begins dividing into many cells. Since ...[text shortened]... e rythm method as it is a form of Natural Family Planning rather then an artificial means.
The difficulty is that cells that are naturally aborted at an earlier stage by the rythm method have just as much potential, but were in the wrong place at the wrong time... so to speak. Arguably, is that not equivalent to an egg which did embed in the womb successfully being aborted before it became in any way capable of concsiousness due to the pregnancy occurring at the wrong time for the mother and/or father to care for that impending child properly?
I see no difference between a single cell posessing such potential and a bunch of cells posessing such potential at a later (but pre-conscious) stage. Clearly from your response, you do, would you care to expand on where the distinction can be made?
20 Sep 07
Originally posted by lepomisDespite your sarcasm, the extinction of any species, fauna or flora, has a more profound consequence on Humanity than an abortion.
Your right, I would rather see that tax money go to saving the rain forest or something worth while... like a panda bear. The panda bear fetus is very, very important.
The human race is overpopulated.
Putting in legal safeguards to ensure that every possible instance of human life is being protected is illogical and puts further strains on the existing population.
Your inability to be rational doesn't change the fact that we are currently past a sustainable population foot-print.