# What should abortion laws be?



## FA_Q2 (Dec 18, 2009)

All right, I am sure this has been done many times before and will be done many times again but I am new here so bear with me.  A LOT of the debates here are being hijacked by abortion/anti abortion sentiments (some of which I am guilty of myself).  I think this deserves its own thread.  I know it will be difficult but at least try to keep the flaming down as that is where these arguments tend to boil down to.

  My personal settlements on this issue are that abortion should be allowed within the first three months of pregnancy and no later than that.  I do not prescribe to the right of a woman to do with her body as she pleases at the expense of an unborn child.  I believe this, the paramount argument for abortionists, is insanely flawed as it does not take into account any of the right the child has.  

  The first issue I take is the definition that seems to be the norm.  The word fetus is largely used by abortionists to separate an unborn child from being human. Ending the life of a fetus is somehow not the same as ending the life of a unborn child.  This is ridiculous.  The question rises, when does life begin?  It always makes me incredibly angry when abortionists claim that the fetus is not human until the umbilical cord is cut or the child takes their first breath.  Both of these assertions are insane and have no bearing on whether or not the child deserves full rights.  We can and SHOULD all agree that neither of these are good definitions of when life begins though they are good black and white lines in a legal definition sense.  As I stated in another thread, we define human by terms such as self-awareness, consciousness, feelings and terms such as those, not by the fact we can breathe.  A child certainly has those characteristics long before birth except for self-awareness and that usually does not come for several months after birth. 

  The second issue I have is with personal responsibility.  I know that here is where a lot of people get angry but the fact is a child is NOT a surprise.  We know why it happens and how it occurs and there are MANY ways to avoid this outcome.  Condoms, birth control, surgery (if you are done with children), the day after pill, spermicidal creams and there is even a male birth control pill that is coming next year.  Before you scream at how the pill is not 100% effective realize that you CAN use more than 1 type at a time and they are all EXTREMLY effective if used properly.  If you fail to educate yourself on the proper use then that goes right back to personal responsibility.  If you fool around then you have to pay the consequences.  This is not a hard concept and is the reason our society is falling into ruin.  I want to do as I please without working for it, paying for it or living with the consequences of it is a sign of this generation and the very thing that will bring this entire country to ruin.  The idea that you do not have to pay the piper for practicing unsafe sex falls into that same attitude, the attitude of entitlement.  Then there is also the point that if the woman can give up her responsibility to bring the child into this world then why cant the father have the right to give up his finical responsibility after it is born?  If you have a right to decide what happens to your body, I should have the right to decide what happens to my livelihood!

  On the other side of the issue, I believe that abortion should be allowed within the first trimester because I still believe that there are times when the lesser of two evils must be addressed.  Abortions are going to occur and I prefer them happening in a safe and clean environment of a hospital.  It is also the best way to educate and council those undergoing an abortion and take statistical data.  Mandatory counseling (much the same as many states death with dignity laws require) should be part of the process.  Brain activity starts mid to late in the first trimester and to me that defines when the mass of cells begins is journey from a growth to a full blown human.  There is no actual line in the sand that can be scientifically drawn but I believe that the first trimester gives enough safe room that real brain activity has not begun and a woman has plenty of time go through the abortion.  Of course, abortion must be allowed for extreme circumstances such as threat to life. 

  Also, the argument that life begins at conception is somewhat flawed as well.  Certainly, the potential for life has begun but a single fertilized embryonic egg holds absolutely no similarity with human life.  The sentiment that life starts there is wholly religious to me.  

  If a woman fails to abort in the first trimester, then the child should be given protection.  At that point, an abortion should be considered manslaughter at the least.  I know there will be doctors that would circumvent the law and women that will try as well but with charges that high it would limit it.  There is a large gray aria here for problems like substance addiction but I will not get into that now as this post is long enough and I am tired.  Please give me your thoughts.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 18, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> The first issue I take is the definition that seems to be the norm.  The word fetus is largely used by abortionists to separate an unborn child from being human. Ending the life of a fetus is somehow not the same as ending the life of a unborn child.  This is ridiculous.  The question rises, when does life begin?  It always makes me incredibly angry when abortionists claim that the fetus is not human until the umbilical cord is cut or the child takes their first breath.



So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON. 


> Both of these assertions are insane and have no bearing on whether or not the child deserves full rights.  We can and SHOULD all agree that neither of these are good definitions of when life begins though they are good black and white lines in a legal definition sense.  As I stated in another thread, we define human by terms such as self-awareness, consciousness, feelings and terms such as those, not by the fact we can breathe.  A child certainly has those characteristics long before birth except for self-awareness and that usually does not come for several months after birth.



To say that a fetus is A PERSON, is to entitle it to rights that are impossible to enforce for it. The non-viable fetus is subjected to every danger that it's PERSON, THE WOMAN carrier is subjected to experiencing, including death, injury, and destruction by the organism's outside world. For a fetus, the outside world is everything beyond the uterus, and of course, everything that is introduced TO the uterus, which happens to be by the choice OF said carrier woman. So, if she smokes Crack, or has HIV, or even has a few drinks one night- the fetus is subjected to die as a result. If the woman is hit by a car, in a train, ship, or plane wreck, or is caught in a bad storm and electrocuted, even, that fetus is ABSOLUTELY not going to have any opportunity to get away. The FETUS does not have a livelihood to protect- there is nobody to hold it, to cuddle it, to talk to it, or to nurture it. All there is, is the woman who carries it. THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY. 
Before an egg hatches, it is NOT A CHICK. It is STILL an egg, dude. Got it?
You really do not know what characteristics a fetus has before birth anyways. It is impossible for us to currently make any absolutes on what may or may not be going through a fetus' mind, if anything really does. We all know they have a nervous system, and once they have a cerebral cortex, we know that they certainly have the equipment available to think.. But just like having ovaries or testicles does not mean that the thing is capable of reproduction (as a fetus), we cannot say for certain that having any other equipment serves any actual purpose before birth. 
FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way. Before it takes that essential first breath, it can feasibly go BACK INSIDE and still grow a little longer. Once it takes that breath, there is no possible way it can survive in the uterus. This is proof positive to me that breathing is the number one essential to life. When a person stops breathing, they die NOT because their heart stops. Their heart STOPS because there is no longer a FUNCTION for it. The heart is responsible for carrying oxygen to the various cells and tissues, using the component Blood to deliver that oxygen. This is health 101, man. I am not trying to demean you in any way, but I think that certain things need to be cleared up to you, before we can continue this conversation in an intelligent manner, when you discount breathing as though it is a non-issue to life. I find that pretty ridiculous, myself. 



> The second issue I have is with personal responsibility.  I know that here is where a lot of people get angry but the fact is a child is NOT a surprise.  We know why it happens and how it occurs and there are MANY ways to avoid this outcome.  Condoms, birth control, surgery (if you are done with children), the day after pill, spermicidal creams and there is even a male birth control pill that is coming next year.  Before you scream at how the pill is not 100% effective realize that you CAN use more than 1 type at a time and they are all EXTREMLY effective if used properly.  If you fail to educate yourself on the proper use then that goes right back to personal responsibility.



That is absolutely ridiculous. It takes TWO people to make a fucking baby. TWO people have to screw to get that sperm in there, to say hi there and hello to the Egg Flavor of the Month. I have more to say on this shit.. Because it is absolutely positively INANE. 



> If you fool around then you have to pay the consequences.  This is not a hard concept and is the reason our society is falling into ruin.  I want to do as I please without working for it, paying for it or living with the consequences of it is a sign of this generation and the very thing that will bring this entire country to ruin.  The idea that you do not have to pay the piper for practicing unsafe sex falls into that same attitude, the attitude of entitlement.  Then there is also the point that if the woman can give up her responsibility to bring the child into this world then why cant the father have the right to give up his finical responsibility after it is born?  If you have a right to decide what happens to your body, I should have the right to decide what happens to my livelihood!



Well, in that case, if you smoke the lowest tar, highest filtered cigaretted, and get lung cancer, or you break your arm as a result of riding a bike (even when using safety equipment)- then it is your own damn fault, and you should also not seek medical treatment. You knew the risks, and now you must face the consequences. /sarcasm

Sorry, guy, but people do a great many things for recreation. The pleasure is worth the risks- 99.99999% of the time. I can't personally use birth control. I am allergic. It gives me hives, and makes me hemmorhage like crazy. So for me, I am stuck with condoms. I don't always fucking have one of those. Tough shit. 
If you see someone without a helmet, riding a bike or a skateboard, do you tell them that a head injury would be something they just have to forego medical treatment for, and live with their risky behavior for the rest of their lives? No, you do not. Well. I hope not, anyways. ;-) Same goes with pregnancy. When something negatively affects your body that you could have probably controlled better, you might regret that you were careless.. but I promise you- you will not be regretting seeing a Doctor for treatment. Nope. No way.. 
Furthermore, it STILL takes two to tango. Don't want kids? Dont have sex with a woman who is not ready to have a baby. Don't want to pay child support? Dont have sex until you have enough money to support those munchkins. PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY DOES GO BOTH WAYS. We are NOT your SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS. 



> On the other side of the issue, I believe that abortion should be allowed within the first trimester because I still believe that there are times when the lesser of two evils must be addressed.  Abortions are going to occur and I prefer them happening in a safe and clean environment of a hospital.



Well, unfortunately most hospitals are religiously based, usually Catholic, and they typically do not offer abortion on demand. Some offer life saving abortions, and rarely, you find one that will do it if you had a case of rape or incest. Hospitals  being the only places to get abortions would be horrible.. a VERY big injustice to the American People. Perhaps the county health department can have their own abortion clinics, as well- Oh but wait- that will make everyone think that government funding is paying for them. And on the same token, you sure don't want abortions paying your government official's bi-weekly check, either, now would ya. Gosh. What a predicament. 



> It is also the best way to educate and council those undergoing an abortion and take statistical data.  Mandatory counseling (much the same as many states death with dignity laws require) should be part of the process.



Oh noooo.. We do not need anyone EDUCATING us on abortion or what is happening inside of our bodies. Good grief. Will Big Brother EVER take a LOAD OFF??? Hey as long as you are advocating for the babysitting of adult citizens, why not force all moms and dads to take a 100 hour course in parenting and healthy relationships, child bonding, etc. That would certainly help to cure the current child ABUSE trend..  ONE IN FIVE. YES. 
A huge number, compared to the number of abortions every year. I digress though.. We don't need to be fucking SCHOOLED. We KNOW we don't want the fucking baby, and all you would be doing is delaying us in getting it. That paired with your First Trimester rule, and nobody would ever get to the clinics in time. So how, then, DO you actually SUPPORT first trimester abortion, in the first place???? I don't buy it. I think you are just saying that to make yourself look a little better. Read the children's book "The Wolf and the Kids". It is about a wolf who dresses in sheeps clothing, and then eats an entire family of goats. The mom goat comes home, finds the wolf asleep, and slices his stomach open, freeing her still alive "kids", and then shoves rocks in his tummy and sews him back up. Good versus Evil. Good RULES. ALWAYS. 



> Brain activity starts mid to late in the first trimester and to me that defines when the mass of cells begins is journey from a growth to a full blown human.  There is no actual line in the sand that can be scientifically drawn but I believe that the first trimester gives enough safe room that real brain activity has not begun and a woman has plenty of time go through the abortion.  Of course, abortion must be allowed for extreme circumstances such as threat to life.



The cerebral cortex doesn't come into the picture until late in the second trimester, though.. and again, having the equipment does not guarantee use of that equipment, as I have already illustrated with the ovaries and testacles. 
Also- What is it with you "pro lifers", who always, without fail, are more than happy to "allow" (or maybe encourage- that is societally closer to the right definition) a woman who has already experienced a great deal of pain, to go and commit "murder", on the "human person" she is carrying? Is a woman being on her death bed, being raped, or molested by a family member, just one big BONER MOMENT for you folks?? It is not enough that you call pro choicers like me who have had an abortion "baby killers" who "dehumanize" the FETUS (the scientifically accurate term, btw) by calling it a fetus- You guys have to revictimize women who might not actually WANT to abort by creating some sociological standard of "deservance" to this "right to life" that you speak of- and act as though no woman SHOULD want a baby if it was the product of rape. That is LOOOOOOWWWWWW.
It's MADNESS, it is ABUSE, it is a form of MIND CONTROL, and it is not AT ALL being PRO anything. Y'all say "rape" and "incest", and even "near death" as if they are ALL experiences that a LITTLE BITTY WEAK ASS WOMAN cannot possibly endure or survive. Get fucking over yourselves. 
That argument is the WEAKEST SHIT I HAVE HEARD, AS OF YET. 



> Also, the argument that life begins at conception is somewhat flawed as well.  Certainly, the potential for life has begun but a single fertilized embryonic egg holds absolutely no similarity with human life.  The sentiment that life starts there is wholly religious to me.



I really don't understand where you got this from. The bible does not say anywhere within it, that life begins while we are in the uterus. That is just something I like to call a LEAP, like most false religious teachings tend to be. Also, it works into the whole circular logic issue, but I will save that argument for later in the discussion. 



> If a woman fails to abort in the first trimester, then the child should be given protection.  At that point, an abortion should be considered manslaughter at the least.  I know there will be doctors that would circumvent the law and women that will try as well but with charges that high it would limit it.  There is a large gray aria here for problems like substance addiction but I will not get into that now as this post is long enough and I am tired.  Please give me your thoughts.



Ohhhh So all we have to do is get hooked on CRACK or something, and we are in the clear, because we are SUCH WEAK LITTLE BITCHES and only the DUMBEST MOST FUCKED UP BITCHES should be allowed to avoid prosecution for "killing" their "protected" offspring??

You are a TOTAL misogynist. Did you know that???


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 18, 2009)

I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop _possibly as early as 7 weeks after conception_. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior o the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it , we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no _selfhood_. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.

This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 18, 2009)

APPENDIX:I also support abortion as a necessary, if undesirable, option in medical emergencies threaten the life of mother and/or child (it's better to save one life than to allow two to die)


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 19, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > The first issue I take is the definition that seems to be the norm.  The word fetus is largely used by abortionists to separate an unborn child from being human. Ending the life of a fetus is somehow not the same as ending the life of a unborn child.  This is ridiculous.  The question rises, when does life begin?  It always makes me incredibly angry when abortionists claim that the fetus is not human until the umbilical cord is cut or the child takes their first breath.
> ...



And you're a baby hater. Did you know that?


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 19, 2009)

btw..this baby never took a breath. So technically, it wasn't a person, by your reasoning:

Mother won&#39t be charged with baby&#39s death because of law loophole | WSLS 10


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 19, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> [
> So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.



Define 'person'


> To say that a fetus is A PERSON, is to entitle it to rights that are impossible to enforce for it.



How so?


> The non-viable fetus is subjected to every danger that it's PERSON, THE WOMAN carrier is subjected to experiencing,



sounds like any child under the age of 3
\





> So, if she smokes Crack, or has HIV, or even has a few drinks one night- the fetus is subjected to die as a result.



And a piece of shit waste of life of a female can jeopardize her six year-year-old and sell her baby for crack. What's your point?


> The FETUS does not have a livelihood to protect



Good to know the unem


> Before an egg hatches, it is NOT A CHICK. It is STILL an egg, dude.



Chick is a technical term. Baby is not. Just so ya know... They don't change species upon birthing/hatching, either. You've yet to demonstrate any fundamental cghange to the nature of the entity in question at the time of birth/first breath/cutting the umbilical cord.


> FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way



Well... if that's your reasoning, we know to never take you seriously again



> . This is proof positive to me that breathing is the number one essential to life.



Yet it was alive before it started breathing....

that's called 'fail' on your part


> When a person stops breathing, they die NOT because their heart stops.
> Their heart STOPS because there is no longer a FUNCTION for it.



Wrong, dumbass. They die due to oxygen deprivation, which causes cellular death on an epidemic scale. If the blood is artificially oxygenated by some means, there's no problem. We can safely add medicine and biology to the list of things you know nothing about.


> That is absolutely ridiculous. It takes TWO people to make a fucking baby.



Not necessarily. Ever heard of parthenogenesis?





> If you see someone without a helmet, riding a bike or a skateboard, do you tell them that a head injury would be something they just have to forego medical treatment for, and live with their risky behavior for the rest of their lives?



When I choose to ride a bike without a helmet, I accept the the risk that I might fall and split my head open. I will then have to live with any consequences of my decision. What's your point?





> Well, unfortunately most hospitals are religiously based, usually Catholic,



?!

I don't know where you live, but my experience has been different. Then again, I usually go to training hospitals run by the universities or regional hospitals funded by the State.


> again, having the equipment does not guarantee use of that equipment, as I have already illustrated with



-your posts, which prove that possessing a brain doesn't mean it's fully operational.


> Also- What is it with you "pro lifers",





As opposed to pro-deathers?





> who always, without fail, are more than happy to "allow" (or maybe encourage- that is societally closer to the right definition) a woman who has already experienced a great deal of pain, to go and commit "murder", on the "human person" she is carrying? Is a woman being on her death bed, being raped, or molested by a family member, just one big BONER MOMENT for you folks??



seriously, wtf are you talking about?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 19, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> btw..this baby never took a breath. So technically, it wasn't a person, by your reasoning:
> 
> Mother won&#39t be charged with baby&#39s death because of law loophole | WSLS 10


Did she ever explain what fundamental aspect of the entity's being changed from the millisecond before it began to inhale to the millisecond when inhalation began?


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 19, 2009)

Well it doesn't matter because if it's PREVENTED from ever sucking air, then it's not a PERSON.

My 2nd boy wasn't breathing when he was born. I guess we should have offed him.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 19, 2009)

Does that mean I'm not a person when I hold my breath or I chokw?

OH MY GOD, JD'S CHOKING!!

Relax... it's not like it's a person anymore; just let it die

BUT SHE'S-!

it. Not she. Is it breathing?

well, no...

I rest my case

*JD chokes to death*


----------



## Care4all (Dec 19, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1823201 said:
			
		

> Does that mean I'm not a person when I hold my breath or I chokw?
> 
> OH MY GOD, JD'S CHOKING!!
> 
> ...



But can one really choke to death or stop breathing, IF they had never taken their first breath in the first place?  I'm not certain your scenario of JD really fits the argument she was trying to give?  Nice try though....   (now don't go all batty on me.....I am not saying that I agree with her...just saying....)

Care


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 19, 2009)

She said breathing air is a necessary condition for personhood


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 19, 2009)

And one can suffocate if one never begins to breathe- in fact that's the very danger of not starting to breathe x.o The end result is exactly the same.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 19, 2009)

I thought she said the baby taking its first breath, gives the baby person-hood....the breath of life....and all, including protections, that comes with such, under the law....I presume she meant?

Until the baby is BORN, which is when it takes its first breath after delivery....only then a certificate of live birth is given...if the baby to be does NOT take its first breath, under the law it is considered stillborn-delivered dead...I believe?  And under the law, she would be correct in her assumptions on person-hood.  

You can't deduct the child on your taxes, until they take their first breath when being birthed....you get no recognition under the law for this child to be, unless it is BORN...takes its first breath.

Having said all of THAT....

She is wrong imo on so many levels....

A mother losing her baby during pregnancy is as great a loss as losing a child that has taken its first breath, then died.

Couples expecting a child, relate to their child to be, as their baby....attachments are made with this other human before it takes its first breath.

How can one say a fetus is not alive when it is kicking you while in your womb?

There is much more to it than the law, that we live under.

care


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 20, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1823190 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 20, 2009)

A person is a life that has lived for the time to begin a period of personality, a life begins at conception. (What else begins at human conception, a Hyundai Getz?)

So the argument is a false one.

Abortion is killing a life and the real question is do we accept that as legal for a time of our moral choice?

The US is divided on this, some times killing (not murder, murder is a legal term) is necessary for the greater good, (some war for example), some times it is damaging to the greater good. 

This is the real question that needs to be answered, is abortion killing for the greater good or not?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 20, 2009)

Care4all said:


> I thought she said the baby taking its first breath, gives the baby person-hood....the breath of life....and all, including protections, that comes with such, under the law....I presume she meant?
> 
> Until the baby is BORN, which is when it takes its first breath after delivery....only then a certificate of live birth is given...if the baby to be does NOT take its first breath, under the law it is considered stillborn-delivered dead...I believe?  And under the law, she would be correct in her assumptions on person-hood.
> 
> ...



30% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage before the woman ever knew she was pregnant.. 

I personally also agree that I could not think of a fetus as anything but a person, when I see it moving in someone's tummy, or felt it kicking in my own. I simply support the woman's choice to not think of it as a person. Some people are real sociopaths, and I would rather they abort an 8 month gestated fetus for the simple fact that they decided they don't want it, than to give birth to it, and leave it to die or give it a life of suffering due to societal pressures. 
Societal pressure comes from both sides of this debate also- don't get me wrong here. Pro choicers who scream and yell all about wantedness, really seem to cause post traumatic stress in people who were ever in foster care, just as much as pro lifers calling post abortion women baby killers, or abortion itself "murder", the same type of mental health issues. 
I personally debate it because I would rather it were legal and up to the person who would be considered the criminal if she miscarried under suspicious circumstances (like the fetus in the gift box- that shit is suspicious for sure- but I mean, when she miscarries or has a stillbirth in a toilet, and the baby doesn't make it, etc.. And she never told her parents, so she just took off, not knowing what to do.. Then she could end up being plastered all over the news and for what? For having a late term miscarriage and being too young or fucked up on drugs or alcohol to know how to deal or whatever??). 
The whole thing about protecting fetuses after a certain point of gestation is absolutely a slippery slope, indeed, and should be considered a no-no, legally. This just protects the potential parent from criminal consequences and trauma when they obviously did nothing that could be construed as wrong- at least- statistically- the odds that she did something wrong are only ever 1:8 for the first trimester. Actually, since we are talking about late term abortions being considered to be wrong, from a legal standpoint- then statistically there is a VERY slim chance that she intended to miscarry or abort at that time. 

I am not pro choice because I am anti fetuses or anti baby. I am nothing of the sort. I love my child, and want another one, someday- later, when I have more money to support one, anyways. I support everyone's INDIVIDUAL choice, and since the only individual in question is the woman, and since this all pertains to HER body, that being her kingdom to rule over, then it stands to reason that it is her choice. Any choice she makes, I support fully. I just don't want her to be pushed to have to make one choice over a choice that would be better for her, in the long run, because a bunch of people just cannot support HER opinions, HER life, and HER well being. Her fetus.. does NOT trump HER.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Because women have miscarriages and stillbirths all the fucking time



Doesn't support your claim. Try again.


> that would be negligence towards an actual person.



As would smoking crack while pregnant. You're not helping your case.


> They become an entity of their own.


They are from conception. Once again we come back to you never having passed third-grade science. I don't know whether you sucked your teacher's dicks or let them shove their cocks up your ass to pass in school, but clearly you didn't pass by studying hard and learning anything outside of Feminist Studies.


> No- it was GROWING.



Not only is growing not mutually-exclusive with being alive, it's generally considered characteristic of living things.


> I said it takes two people to make a baby.



And you were wrong.


> Without medical treatment.. Live with it _without_ treating the head injury.



No thanks; I'm not that eager to see things your way.


> Yeah there are lots of regular hospitals, but something between 20 and 30% of hospitals are owned by or partnered with religiously affiliated hospitals



You do realize that's a minority, right?

Combined with
[quoteJDumbass]
unfortunately most hospitals are religiously based, usually Catholic,[/quote]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...what-should-abortion-laws-be.html#post1822973
(post 2)

Either you also skipped fourth grade math or you're simply a liar- wait, that's not fair. Both could be true (and I suspect both are).


> I would like to hear how you intend to artificially oxygenate a fetus's blood resource..



Google it. You haven't given up your dirty pussy yet; I'm, not going to do your homework for you. Try reading and learning for once in your life.

I know 'misogyny' was the word of the week for your Women's Studies class, but you were supposed to look it up in the dictionary before using it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> love my child, and want another one,




Are you going to tell them you killed the first one so you could save up enough money for a new iPod?


----------



## eots (Dec 20, 2009)

do unto others...


----------



## Bill O'Olberman (Dec 20, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826036 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > love my child, and want another one,
> ...



The iPod Touch or Nano? I mean, id vehemently support my girlfriend having a 9th month abortion if I could 64 gigabit iPod Touch or a PS3 or a 40"+ inch Samsung 1080p 120Hz LCD TV. Seriously though, that all stuff is cooler than a baby. 

I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb, which is around weeks 25 and 26. As the pregnancy progresses a woman should lose some autonomy when it comes to her abortion options unless her life is in danger due to complications. 

Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion? I mean its out but it can only survive if its hooked up to machines. I think its a tradgedy if I couldnt because I have it on good authority from the fetus itself that it would rather die than be hooked up to life support.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb,



I disagree. Viability isn't really a set point or all that useful, as  technological improvements allow us to save preemies that would have died ten or twenty years ago and there's always the possibility of a child developing slowly or having a medical condition that must be treated after birth to ensure survival. Thus,m I find the concept of 'viability' to be of limited usefulness. Additionally, a child with no midbrain or real head, but with a functioning brainstem can be 'viable' in that the brainstem can ensure that the heart and lungs function, yet we're dealing with a creature that has no consciousness- not only it effectively braindead, it never was and never will be aware of its own existence. This is why I think we should focus on consciousness and and the earliest point at which a conscious mind appears to develop.



> Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion?



Or what of a child that can breathe but simply doesn't start of its own accord without some sort of stimulation of the lungs/diaphragm? Again, I've already shown how considering breathing as a necessary condition for personhood leads to absurdity.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 20, 2009)

Bill O'Olberman said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826036 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Huh???
Who said anything about buying myself anything? This is about having money to buy food, clothing, and paying bills for his needs. I can't afford two kids. 
And I do not have an iPod, or a fancy phone, or house, or anything like that. My van is 14 years old. My son gets plenty to eat, and we have a place to live, and adequate clothes to wear, along with proper medical and dental care. 
If I had another kid, I would be on all kinds of welfare..  I just don't want that.. I want to wait until I am financially prepared for another munchkin. 




> I think the "Breath of Life" arguement advanced as the point where the baby becomes a human is inane. I think a better determining factor would be the point of viability and where a substantial majority of fetuses have the ability to survive outside the womb, which is around weeks 25 and 26. As the pregnancy progresses a woman should lose some autonomy when it comes to her abortion options unless her life is in danger due to complications.



So, she has autonomy as long as she is in grave danger... just not if she doesn't, based on some fetuses surviving for a certain amount of time, after a certain number of weeks gestation???

So, since my son was about to destroy me when I was actually IN LABOR, then I had the option, in your opinion, to abort???

What the bloody fuck is that all about. So subjective.. Anyone this subjective about this topic is clearly speaking in terms of their own emotional kneejerk response to the issue, rather than using logic and actually being objective about it. I meant no offense by that, either. 



> Heres a scenario: a child is born premature at 25 weeks and his unable to breath on his own. Clearly, at this point the "my body my choice" argument goes out the window. So can a man actually have a "kill his premature baby thats 90 percent likely to survive but cant breath on its own" kind of abortion? I mean its out but it can only survive if its hooked up to machines. I think its a tradgedy if I couldnt because I have it on good authority from the fetus itself that it would rather die than be hooked up to life support.



If it is not in her body anymore, then no- there is no property right being infringed upon, anymore. 

But, having life support is everyone's personal option.. It is not a requirement, and for a woman who has a life inside of her, I think she has the right to decide whether or not to "pull the plug", on her biological "life support" so to speak- which, in my fact based opinion is really only growth support until the fetus is born, and becomes an infant. 

So, in your scenario, if the premature baby is born and cannot breathe on it's own, then yes it is both of the parent's decision on whether they allow it to even BEGIN life support treatment. And, just like our currently failing baby boomer population has it, they can also decide to take that baby off of life support, too. Those are just the facts of life. 

Scuse the pun.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 20, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
			
		

> I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop _possibly as early as 7 weeks after conception_. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior o the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it , we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no _selfhood_. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.
> 
> This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.





I can't believe that's your position after the heated argument you had with JD in the fetus in a box thread, although I was only skimming it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

I don't see why you're confused, FT. JD was lying and denying fundamental biological facts. Of course I'm not going to agree with the idiot.


----------



## Samson (Dec 20, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> This is the real question that needs to be answered, is abortion killing for the greater good or not?



Frogen, I'm astonished you haven't drawn the same parallel I have between Prohibition of Alcohol and Prohibition of Abortion.

I had a very close friend in college who had a one night stand with a chix that showed up at his place about 6 weeks later, pregnant, and in need of funds for an abortion. Being the honerable, enlightened, and perhaps a tad naive fellow that he was, he wrote out a check for $90.00, and never heard from the girl again......erm......at least to my knowledge.

The irresponsible past behaviour was water under the bridge: The question was what to do PRESENTLY about the Future: The girl didn't want to marry (niether did he). She didn't want to give birth.......without the option of Legal Abortion, then there is only the Black Market.

Which brings me to the Alcohol Analogy: We can no more expect people to not have abortions than we can expect people not to drink. The fact that both have historical cultural contexts makes this even more true.

So is Alcohol for the Greater Good? Apparently. Therefore, Abortion is for the Greater Good.

I'm sure Socrates would agree.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

Samson, you're arguing for legalized rape, murder, and theft on the grounds that we can't prevent all of it. Yours is a fool's argument.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 20, 2009)

> What should abortion laws be?



First they should invent some sort of a test to determine if an unborn baby will be a liberal democrat.  If the test is positive and proves the baby will be a liberal democrat, then they should just automatically abort the fetus.  This would solve a lot of problems down the road.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

well, this used to be a serious thread...


----------



## Samson (Dec 20, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1828085 said:
			
		

> Samson, you're arguing for legalized rape, murder, and theft on the grounds that we can't prevent all of it. Yours is a fool's argument.



No, its just poorly presented arguement.

The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is _Government Regulation_.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)

Why would you allow a Black Market for Abortion, but not for Alcohol???


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

> The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is _Government Regulation_.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)



It has everything to do with rape and murder, especially since abortion involves terminating a human life ans is therefore homicide by definition. To argue that one form of homicide should not be restricted because it cannot be stopped is to argue that all homicide- and all other acts- should be unrestricted because they too are impossible to stop in all instances.

It's a really stupid argument that only a retard or an anarchist (which may imply retardation) would ever forward in seriousness.


----------



## Samson (Dec 20, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1828150 said:
			
		

> > The reason Black Market's thrive is government regulation: Prohibiting Alcohol and Abortion is _Government Regulation_.....(nothing to do with rape, murder and theft)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought I'd try to see the arguement from another angle.

You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.

****unsubscribe****


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 20, 2009)

> You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.



Why do so many people who want to kill their unborn children refuse to open a dictionary?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 21, 2009)

Gone for two days and look where my thread has gon



> Samson
> Frogen, I'm astonished you haven't drawn the same parallel I have between Prohibition of Alcohol and Prohibition of Abortion.
> 
> I had a very close friend in college who had a one night stand with a chix that showed up at his place about 6 weeks later, pregnant, and in need of funds for an abortion. Being the honerable, enlightened, and perhaps a tad naive fellow that he was, he wrote out a check for $90.00, and never heard from the girl again......erm......at least to my knowledge.
> ...


This is the reason I said that abortion should be allowed in the first trimester and much of the poll voters seem to agree.  For the greater good it should be allowed up to a certain point.  Your friend would have been within that time frame.

I will go back to JD&#8217;s First post as the rest are a rehash of the same post.


> So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.
> 
> To say that a fetus is A PERSON, is to entitle it to rights that are impossible to enforce for it. The non-viable fetus is subjected to every danger that it's PERSON, THE WOMAN carrier is subjected to experiencing, including death, injury, and destruction by the organism's outside world. For a fetus, the outside world is everything beyond the uterus, and of course, everything that is introduced TO the uterus, which happens to be by the choice OF said carrier woman. So, if she smokes Crack, or has HIV, or even has a few drinks one night- the fetus is subjected to die as a result. If the woman is hit by a car, in a train, ship, or plane wreck, or is caught in a bad storm and electrocuted, even, that fetus is ABSOLUTELY not going to have any opportunity to get away. The FETUS does not have a livelihood to protect- there is nobody to hold it, to cuddle it, to talk to it, or to nurture it. All there is, is the woman who carries it. THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY.
> Before an egg hatches, it is NOT A CHICK. It is STILL an egg, dude. Got it?


Do not try and argue semantics with me.  It makes debate impossible.  Replace each human with person and my statement still stands.  The first breath is a ridiculous argument that you cannot uphold.  There is no difference between an infant that is in the womb at 9 months and one that has been out of the womb for 10 seconds other than location.  Partial birth abortions take a fetus that CAN survive completely outside the womb and kills them.  



> You really do not know what characteristics a fetus has before birth anyways. It is impossible for us to currently make any absolutes on what may or may not be going through a fetus' mind, if anything really does. We all know they have a nervous system, and once they have a cerebral cortex, we know that they certainly have the equipment available to think.. But just like having ovaries or testicles does not mean that the thing is capable of reproduction (as a fetus), we cannot say for certain that having any other equipment serves any actual purpose before birth.


  We do know many of the characteristics of a fetus before birth (and asking for absolute is intellectually dishonest as there are VERY few absolutes in this world).  If you cared to do a little research, we can and have recorded brain activity of fetuses before and it is surprising what you can deduct from many of the studies that has been conducted on fetuses.  You would also be surprised at how well we can interpret brain activity.  Do not use ambiguity to hide behind.  Just because YOU don&#8217;t know what is going on does mean it is not happening.  


> FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way. Before it takes that essential first breath, it can feasibly go BACK INSIDE and still grow a little longer. Once it takes that breath, there is no possible way it can survive in the uterus. This is proof positive to me that breathing is the number one essential to life. When a person stops breathing, they die NOT because their heart stops. Their heart STOPS because there is no longer a FUNCTION for it. The heart is responsible for carrying oxygen to the various cells and tissues, using the component Blood to deliver that oxygen. This is health 101, man. I am not trying to demean you in any way, but I think that certain things need to be cleared up to you, before we can continue this conversation in an intelligent manner, when you discount breathing as though it is a non-issue to life. I find that pretty ridiculous, myself.


Read the statements I made again.  I said that breathing was a non issue to the definition of what it is to be human.  You do not consider a dog human yet it breaths.  Your argument is way off base here.  As pointed out by others, YOU need to take health 101 before preaching it here.  


> That is absolutely ridiculous. It takes TWO people to make a fucking baby. TWO people have to screw to get that sperm in there, to say hi there and hello to the Egg Flavor of the Month. I have more to say on this shit.. Because it is absolutely positively INANE.


NO, you are being ignorant.  You argue for the woman&#8217;s side of choice because SHE does not need to take responsibility for the act of having a child and IGNORE the fact that the man is REQUIRED to take said responsibility if she does decide to have a child.  What does the law say to a man if they want to keep a child and the man does not want it or to pay child support?  They say tough shit you shouldn&#8217;t have been screwing around.  Why do you continually bring the man into this when the man is already required to take the responsibility of his actions? 


> If you see someone without a helmet, riding a bike or a skateboard, do you tell them that a head injury would be something they just have to forego medical treatment for, and live with their risky behavior for the rest of their lives? No, you do not. Well. I hope not, anyways. ;-) Same goes with pregnancy. When something negatively affects your body that you could have probably controlled better, you might regret that you were careless.. but I promise you- you will not be regretting seeing a Doctor for treatment. Nope. No way..


WOW did you completely miss the mark here.  I did not say you need to go without treatment.  If you have a head injury of course you would get treatment.  You would still have to live with the lost brain function as a consequence if it was a bad head injury.  Same with pregnancy, you are offered many forms of care such as prenatal doctor visits and those wonderful vitamins everyone gets but you still have to live with the consequences of your actions, the child.


> Furthermore, it STILL takes two to tango. Don't want kids? Dont have sex with a woman who is not ready to have a baby. Don't want to pay child support? Dont have sex until you have enough money to support those munchkins. PERSONAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY DOES GO BOTH WAYS. We are NOT your SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS.


As I said before, NO IT DOES NOT.  Currently it only goes ONE way, as in I am required to care for a baby I do not want but you can just kill it off if you do not want to care for it.  


> Oh noooo.. We do not need anyone EDUCATING us on abortion or what is happening inside of our bodies. Good grief. Will Big Brother EVER take a LOAD OFF??? Hey as long as you are advocating for the babysitting of adult citizens, why not force all moms and dads to take a 100 hour course in parenting and healthy relationships, child bonding, etc. That would certainly help to cure the current child ABUSE trend.. ONE IN FIVE. YES.
> A huge number, compared to the number of abortions every year. I digress though.. We don't need to be fucking SCHOOLED. We KNOW we don't want the fucking baby, and all you would be doing is delaying us in getting it. That paired with your First Trimester rule, and nobody would ever get to the clinics in time. So how, then, DO you actually SUPPORT first trimester abortion, in the first place???? I don't buy it. I think you are just saying that to make yourself look a little better. Read the children's book "The Wolf and the Kids". It is about a wolf who dresses in sheeps clothing, and then eats an entire family of goats. The mom goat comes home, finds the wolf asleep, and slices his stomach open, freeing her still alive "kids", and then shoves rocks in his tummy and sews him back up. Good versus Evil. Good RULES. ALWAYS.


Hmmmm&#8230;.  Absolute drivel.  Do you have a point or do you simply want to insult me? 


> I really don't understand where you got this from. The bible does not say anywhere within it, that life begins while we are in the uterus. That is just something I like to call a LEAP, like most false religious teachings tend to be. Also, it works into the whole circular logic issue, but I will save that argument for later in the discussion.


That does not change what I said. 


> Ohhhh So all we have to do is get hooked on CRACK or something, and we are in the clear, because we are SUCH WEAK LITTLE BITCHES and only the DUMBEST MOST FUCKED UP BITCHES should be allowed to avoid prosecution for "killing" their "protected" offspring??
> 
> You are a TOTAL misogynist. Did you know that???


Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.  This is a continuous habit with you.  If you are to quote me, please make your statement pertain to what I said.  It seems that all you are trying to do is demise people that place an argument against what you belive.
You are a TOTAL misanthropist.  Did YOU know that???
As far as I can tell your argument is that women should have control over their bodies and that personal responsibility should have no bearing on the choices we make.  Fetuses are not people and can be discarded at will based on the fact they do not breath!  Is that it!


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> *THIS is why the fetus is considered a part of the woman's body- because it is contained within it- and is also why a fetus will never have independent rights, because it IS CONTAINED IN SOMEONE'S BODY. *




Bingo.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

JD and CuminmyTum know nothing of biology.

Being inside another body doesn't make you a part of that body.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 21, 2009)

It is more than that.  It is taking another life that is totally independent of you and throwing it away because of inconvenience.  That is the crux of the issue.  The true scary part is many of those are willing to brutally kill a child by chopping them up into pieces *at* birth out of that inconvenience of putting them up for adoption.  The fact there are people that defend that position really shows the depths of depravity of this society and the unwillingness to accept the consequences of the lives we lead.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1829679 said:
			
		

> JD and CuminmyTum know nothing of biology.
> *
> Being inside another body doesn't make you a part of that body*.



HUH?

Have you been dipping into the eggnog already?

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

So cumisdelicious thinks a roundworm is part of cummy's own anatomy?

Go join JD is remedial biology.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1829957 said:
			
		

> So cumisdelicious thinks a roundworm is part of cummy's own anatomy?
> 
> Go join JD is remedial biology.



HUH?

They are both parasites and subjected to be removed by the host organism at any time.

.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Because women have miscarriages and stillbirths all the fucking time, moron. As long as you call me names, I will call you names, also. If that is all you can do here, lol..
> It is impossible to ensure that ALL women even KNOW they are pregnant, also. You CANT enforce rights for all fetuses. That is ridiculous. So ridiculous.. How the fuck can a FETUS have fucking RIGHTS as an idividual when all it is is something that lives pretty much in a COCOON??? Pah-lease.
> Plus, what are you going to do, sit there are charge women with accidental homicide charges when they jump on a trampoline and later lose the 5 week gestated embryo? ...or child neglect when they get beat up by their husbands and lose the pregnancy status? Give it up, man. That is insane. Fetuses are NOT people. They are humans, but they do not have the capacity of individualism, and cannot be considered individuals, because of that simple very REAL fact.



The OP is right on this. Your feminist bull shit aside, all this is about is when an organism is human. What is asanine is your case that there is a distinction between a person and a human. They're one in the same as far as most of us are concerned. Not some contrivance for convenience sake. The point is you would not condone murder of an innocent person/human/life and it is pure cowardice, and selfishness to argue that a baby is somehow less than a person/human/life 30 seconds, 30 minutes, 30 hours, days or weeks, before it is expelled from the womb. It has all of the sames senses prior to being expelled from the womb as it does after it leaves the womb. People like you make these ridiculous arguments solely so you can sleep at night.

The interesting thing about this one is how far the position of many have come. At one time this really was a black or white issue for most. Either abortion anytime or abortion never. Many pro-lifers have made a fair compromise becauese they are not so naive to believe that there is functioning person at the point of conception. But it is the abortion rights activists that won't budge. Abortion whenever for whatever. Further proving the lefts abhoration for anything remotely resembling personal accountability.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 21, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> It is more than that.  It is taking another life that is totally independent of you and throwing it away because of inconvenience.  That is the crux of the issue.  The true scary part is many of those are willing to brutally kill a child by chopping them up into pieces *at* birth out of that inconvenience of putting them up for adoption.  The fact there are people that defend that position really shows the depths of depravity of this society and the unwillingness to accept the consequences of the lives we lead.



The day you can adopt an embryo, and take it home with you, without taking the woman as well, let me know.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

Exactly.

PS...I would love anyone who refers to a baby as a parasite to please provide a link to a scientific study which proves it is a parasite.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > It is more than that.  It is taking another life that is totally independent of you and throwing it away because of inconvenience.  That is the crux of the issue.  The true scary part is many of those are willing to brutally kill a child by chopping them up into pieces *at* birth out of that inconvenience of putting them up for adoption.  The fact there are people that defend that position really shows the depths of depravity of this society and the unwillingness to accept the consequences of the lives we lead.
> ...



Are you high? Hello, donated eggs and/or sperm are often used for in-vitro.

http://www.health.state.ny.us/publications/1127/


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> 
> PS...I would love anyone who refers to a baby as a parasite to please provide a link to a scientific study which proves it is a parasite.


look up the definition of a parasitic relationship


----------



## 2Parties (Dec 21, 2009)

I'm gonna abort myself if I ever see another abortion thread.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

"A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)"

"When a parasite invades host tissue, the host tissue will sometimes respond by forming a capsule (of connective tissue) to surround the parasite and cut it off from other surrounding tissue (examples would be Paragonimus westermani, lung fluke, or Oncocerca volvulus, a nematode worm causing cutaneous filariasis in the human). 
b) When the human embryo or fetus attaches to and invades the lining tissue of the mother's uterus, the lining tissue responds by surrounding the human embryo and does not cut it off from the mother, but rather establishes a means of close contact (the placenta) between the mother and the new human being."

"Parasitism usually involves an immunological response on the part of the host. (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 8.) "

"A parasite is generally detrimental to the reproductive capacity of the invaded host. The host may be weakened, diseased or killed by the parasite, thus reducing or eliminating the host's capacity to reproduce."
Libertarians for Life - Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite

Undoubtedly a biased site, but they provide scientific references to go with their statements.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.


Ahmadjian, Vernon; Paracer, Surindar (2000), _Symbiosis: an introduction to biological associations_, Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-195-11806-5

The fetus is a  biotrophic parasite; it's simply not usually referred to as such for the sake of sensitivity. Because of the negative association ascribed to the term 'parasite', it is common for people to say that a parasite must be a different species; this isn't based on any reasoning, logic, or scientific points, but rather on the desire to not call one's own child a parasite.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

You know, I actually looked into "parasite". It was used to refer to leeching relatives before it was used as a biological term.

So meh, either way. Children are parasites too.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Exactly.
> 
> PS...I would love anyone who refers to a baby as a parasite to please provide a link to a scientific study which proves it is a parasite.



*S: (n) parasite (an animal or plant that lives in or on a host (another animal or plant); it obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host)*


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
			
		

> I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop _possibly as early as 7 weeks after conception_. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior o the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it , we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no _selfhood_. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.
> 
> This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.



Although, I don't agree with your cutoff at 6 weeks, I can at least respect your opinion of this and the basis by which you arrived at it.  My belief that the being is a human from the moment of conception on tells me that when sentience begins is irrelevant and that unless there are extenuating circumstances affecting the furtherance of life of the mother, the fetal life should be protected.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



That's a link?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 21, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



Actually, a parasite has to either move to another host to survive, or some other types will spend it's entire life within the host, to survive, and dying only when it exits that host.

This is not the case with fetuses. Fetuses are not parasites.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 21, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, the 1/3rd of all pregnant women who end up having a miscarriage before they ever knew they were pregnant, should be required to report the "death" authorities, and subjected to ongoing testing, etc, to avoid prosecution for "foul play"???

Yikes.

I disagree.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sorry for the late reply. Your post was buried under JD's attempts to get social security by proving herself retarded.

My question to you is this: what, then of the braindead or children born with a brainstem but no other brain structures?


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
> ...



Er..a  miscarriage isn't an abortion.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

Besides which, if they miscarry BEFORE they know they're pregnant, how do they know they're having a miscarriage and not just a heavy period?

I'd love to see where the 1/3 number came from. Have a link and explanation for that number?


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
> ...



And where did I state such a thing?

No where did I say anything about having to report anything.  Also a miscarriage is nothing more than a natural death... it was not induced at the hands of another.  Big difference there.

Oh and by the way JD, if I am not mistaken, miscarriages are reported by the doctors when they are known of.  My wife miscarried our first child.  It was heartbreaking to the both of us.  Three days after we discovered that she was pregnant she lost the baby.  We took the remains to the hospital with us (and no we could not identify it as a baby) but after the exam we were told that she had mis-carried.  I believe, although am not certain, that the hospital had to report this to the state.  It was a tough and scary thing in our lives.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832132 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
> ...



Brain dead... would be as I understand it a natural death.  I would also understand that this would mean that the child would be born and then determined to be still born.  Although that may not be what you mean by your question.  If you meant braindead while still within the womb, then I would understand that would be taken care of by a natural miscarriage.

In your second example, I would understand that case to be one of imminent death anyway.  If you are talking of whether or not an abortion should be allowed... I'd have to say that death is imminent and that should be left up to the doctor.  Is there anything that can be done to save the child?  If not, then maybe an abortion would be preferred rather than having a mother go through the trauma of the remaining pregnancy, birth and death of the child.  But, this should not be left up to only one doctor.  A review of the case should be undertaken.

Immie


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> Brain dead... would be as I understand it a natural death.  I would also understand that this would mean that the child would be born and then determined to be still born.



Braindeath does not always lead to the death of the body. The brainstem will keep the heartand lungs going even if the rest of the brain is gone.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

I don't think brain dead is a scientific term, at any rate. I know it isn't a definite one.


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832175 said:
			
		

> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Brain dead... would be as I understand it a natural death.  I would also understand that this would mean that the child would be born and then determined to be still born.
> ...



But, my understanding is that brain death is defined as death.

I am not aware of this being an issue at birth, not to say that it is not, so I don't know that my answer is sufficient or even correct.  I do know of the defect called Hydroencephalitis (I think that is it) where the child is born without a brain (or is it only the brainstem) but these children do not as far as I know live.  

What do you want me to say?  Mom should be forced to give birth and endure the extremely short life of such a child?  No effing way I would do that to any mother!  

In cases such as this, I tend to realize that I don't know what is best in every case.

Immie


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 21, 2009)

We have become way too far removed from death.

Everyone has to deal with death at some point, including women who get pregnant. I mean, we'll all at some point have to deal with the painful death of our parents...should we therefore execute them before they become a burden, cost us money, and cause us pain?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 21, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> I will go back to JDs First post as the rest are a rehash of the same post.
> 
> 
> > So, my assertion that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.
> ...



I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth. 

Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus. 
A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life support is not available, now is it. 




> Partial birth abortions take a fetus that CAN survive completely outside the womb and kills them.



I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal. 
If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there. 




> We do know many of the characteristics of a fetus before birth (and asking for absolute is intellectually dishonest as there are VERY few absolutes in this world).  If you cared to do a little research, we can and have recorded brain activity of fetuses before and it is surprising what you can deduct from many of the studies that has been conducted on fetuses.  You would also be surprised at how well we can interpret brain activity.  Do not use ambiguity to hide behind.  Just because YOU dont know what is going on does mean it is not happening.



And just because you want to believe it IS happening, does not mean that, either. Stop being so subjective. Everything that you claim about my assertion is equally true about your own. Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it. 


> Read the statements I made again.  I said that breathing was a non issue to the definition of what it is to be human.  You do not consider a dog human yet it breaths.  Your argument is way off base here.  As pointed out by others, YOU need to take health 101 before preaching it here.



You love to twist my words around dont ya.. 
I never said that anything that breathes is a human. I said that we do not become alive until we breathe. 
Keep flaming me, though.. Its hilarious!!  =)



> NO, you are being ignorant.  You argue for the womans side of choice because SHE does not need to take responsibility for the act of having a child and IGNORE the fact that the man is REQUIRED to take said responsibility if she does decide to have a child.



She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she chooses not to have a child. That is true. Also, he doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she doesn't have the child. That is also true. 
And, no- the man is not required to take responsibility if she decided to have the child. If she gives that child up for adoption, then she is letting him off the hook.. and as long as paternity has been established (if he gave a crap he would take this test of course) then he would also have to sign the adoption papers. 
Not only that, but he can ask her to release him from parental responsibility, including child support- which he probably will not pay, even if he did not get the release. Delinquent child support also goes unenforced  95% of the time, anyways. 
From a sociological perspective, yes, both parents SHOULD be accountable for every birth that they are party to causing. 
If two people have sex, YES it is MATING, and the natural thing that sometimes happens when people mate, is that the female gets pregnant with the male's offspring. 
Men have FAR more choice than women tend to have when it comes to baby making and parenting. 
Hell, men can sit in a fucking jacuzzi for a half hour a night, which kills their sperm off almost completely, putting them at about 1/10th of the active sperm counts of a man who is diagnosed with a "low sperm count". And this would cause a man to be able to avoid having kids. Naturally. 

Why the fuck would they bitch about getting a woman pregnant, or having to pay child support????  Why are you WHINING about this so much, really!!




> What does the law say to a man if they want to keep a child and the man does not want it or to pay child support?  They say tough shit you shouldnt have been screwing around.  Why do you continually bring the man into this when the man is already required to take the responsibility of his actions?



Not really.. 95% of the uncollected child support will always be uncollected child support. It is totally unenforced. 
How the fuck is this REQUIRING a man to take responsibility for his actions???
You whiny little bitch.



> WOW did you completely miss the mark here.  I did not say you need to go without treatment.  If you have a head injury of course you would get treatment.  You would still have to live with the lost brain function as a consequence if it was a bad head injury.  Same with pregnancy, you are offered many forms of care such as prenatal doctor visits and those wonderful vitamins everyone gets but you still have to live with the consequences of your actions, the child.



You see- pregnancy is actually a MEDICAL CONDITION, which can happen as a result to having sex, the act that you claim is a risk to which every WOMAN should accept the potential consequences of pregnancy, esophagal erosion, gestational diabetes, weight gain, and financial distress.
As long as we are discussing potential, I would hope that you keep in mind those potential effects for the woman as well. If you do not, then I guess you are the one here who is at a loss. I am sorry that you don't appreciate women as much as I do. 



> As I said before, NO IT DOES NOT.  Currently it only goes ONE way, as in I am required to care for a baby I do not want but you can just kill it off if you do not want to care for it.



Bullshit. You can change jobs, or become self employed, and not use a bank account, or switch bank accounts often. That doesn't cause the baby that is YOURS to be less cared for- it just raises everyone else's taxes, and puts that baby and its mother on welfare, medicaid, etc. 

I wonder how many asshole dirtbag deatbeats there are on this very board who are delinquent on their child support, and still bitch about the US deficit- continually pointing at welfare as the reasoning. 
Just because a person has a societal responsibility towards a person, does not force anyone to actually live up to that responsibility. Elderly people in nursing homes are abused and neglected as much as babies and children are. In fact, humans are notorious for neglecting and abusing their species, throughout the ages. Whats new here... 
Wah wah wah.. WTF do you know.. LOL



> Hmmmm.  Absolute drivel.  Do you have a point or do you simply want to insult me?



I am not insulting you. All you do is flame flame flame here. I apologize to all of womankind for people like you. 




> > Ohhhh So all we have to do is get hooked on CRACK or something, and we are in the clear, because we are SUCH WEAK LITTLE BITCHES and only the DUMBEST MOST FUCKED UP BITCHES should be allowed to avoid prosecution for "killing" their "protected" offspring??
> >
> > You are a TOTAL misogynist. Did you know that???
> 
> ...



Honey, if a woman pays for an abortion, then she IS taking responsibility for it. She just isn't mothering it, or giving it 9 months of her life. That is the difference that you do not seem to be able to make a connection on.

We are not saying that the fetus is a PART of her body, but it is within a part of her body, and does affect her entire body, and way of life. As such, she has the right to decide whether it should remain there, for the expected duration of time, or if it should be removed prior, thereby ending (terminating) her state of being pregnant. 

The fetus also can't breathe. It cannot be adopted by another family, it cannot be saved if the woman it depends so highly on dies, and it is absolutely and completely prone to ceasing from growing (living, if you will- but without a death certificate, I hardly call this logical) by all of the above.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



*LINK*


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life support is not available, now is it.




No baby survives if you leave it on a mountain to die. What's your point?



> If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.



Kinda late to decide you don't want to have a baby when we get to killing your child after birth or morons like you crying that it's wrong for a woman to have to see what her baby looks like when she kills it at4 or 6 months gestation.

That's what birth control is for. There's only one wy a woman's ever  een known to get pregnant.


> Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it.



Since we can't know whether you're sentient, that means there's no reason to object to me killing you, right?


> You love to twist my words around dont ya...  I said that we do not become alive until we breathe.



And the basic facts of biology prove you wrong. Nobody has to twist anything; there's no way we could make you look more stupid than you make yourself look.


> She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child,



That's what this is all about, isn't it? You not taking responsibility for something you've done because you can't face your own actions.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Let me google that for you


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 21, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832175 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Only in cases such as this?? Because you sound like you think you do know what is best for the mother, in certain subjectively picked cases. 

I am not picking on you, either. Just keeping it real, here.. 

How is anyone supposed to know (aside from lacking a brain) that a fetus is not already brain-dead, or impaired beyond capability of sustainment of life outside of the uterus, caused by damage from some kind of undetectable anomaly in the placenta/ fetus/ mother?

Do you support abortion in cases where the fetus might have severe mental impairment? Obviously you do, in certain types of cases or impairment of disability. Which ones do you NOT support the woman's choice to abort in, and why are these cases not significant enough to you, that a woman should have to endure the pain of watching their child grow up with (or die within days or weeks of birth as a result of) such an impairment?

And speaking of emotional trauma, in regards to damaged fetuses, or fetuses with dysfunction- why is one ailment greater than another, in your opinion, to the mental and financial health of a woman?
Why shouldn't she end it when she has the chance, and try again later, for a healthy baby?

Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?

Finally- for what purpose does a fetal brain serve itself, the woman, and our society? Why is so much importance placed on it, by pro lifers?

Thanks, Immie..   Talk to you soon..


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832405 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Was that so hard?

.


----------



## obama2ndterm (Dec 21, 2009)

*Abortion  has a law and it's legal.*


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 21, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Why is so much importance placed on it, by pro lifers?



We are pro-lifers - we support women's lives.

I believe that you are referring to the fascist enslavers. They want to impose their repressive victorian views on society. 

1- men who have no testosterone on board hence are not  fucking;

2- sexually unappealing women who are , you guessed it, not  fucking.

So the the "baby" issue is nothing more than a subterfuge for the real issue: we are not fucking and neither will you.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 21, 2009)

> Just keeping it real, here..



JD, any trace of reality left your posts when you started talking about your dog getting you pregnant


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 22, 2009)

> I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
> And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth.
> 
> Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus.
> A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life





As a matter of fact, in many cases it does.  My son was born almost an entire month early and he did not need any medical attention.  Though he was born in a hospital and had jaundice he was put in our arms and never left them until we left the hospital, no doctors did more than look at him.  

  Conceivably, you could take a child several months early and still have it come to term in medical care without the mother.  Your position is rather than force a woman to undergo a simple procedure or suffer through a day of live birth we should force a child to be cut into small pieces!  Your attacks and language are not covering for the straw man.  You still are lacking an argument for personal responsibility.



> I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.
> If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.



Youre damn right it should be illegal and there is not a SINGLE GOD DAMN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT RESONABLE SUPPORTS PARTAL BIRTH ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE BIRTHING PROSESS.  Got that.  It is coming out already and in some cases IS out.  That is the insane argument you are making here.  If that is your true belief, then please late abort yourself

Sorry, the nasty side of me comes out when you condone partial birth abortions as they are obviously murder.  It is the single largest travesty about the abortion issue.



> And just because you want to believe it IS happening, does not mean that, either. Stop being so subjective. Everything that you claim about my assertion is equally true about your own. Since there is NOT A CHANCE that we can figure out if the fetus is truly sentient, then it stands to reason that the only person who TRULY matters in the pregnancy, is the sentient woman carrying it.



I pointed out in my earlier post that what you say is untrue.  We have active brain activity and can reasonable determine what said activity indicates.  Since you are lazy and incompetent at actual sourcing 

Fetal Psychology

Fetal Brain Activity &#8211; 28 Weeks Pregnant « Graphoniac

http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-2000/PDF3/0875.pdf  - A medical journal on fetal brain response to _music_

There are a lot more but you can go looking for some yourself.



> She doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she chooses not to have a child. That is true. Also, he doesn't have to take responsibility for the act of having a child, if she doesn't have the child. That is also true.
> And, no- the man is not required to take responsibility if she decided to have the child. If she gives that child up for adoption, then she is letting him off the hook.. and as long as paternity has been established (if he gave a crap he would take this test of course) then he would also have to sign the adoption papers.
> Not only that, but he can ask her to release him from parental responsibility, including child support- which he probably will not pay, even if he did not get the release. Delinquent child support also goes unenforced 95% of the time, anyways.
> From a sociological perspective, yes, both parents SHOULD be accountable for every birth that they are party to causing.
> ...



And that was the point.  Are you really that dense?  The man has no choice to shove off the responsibility; it is ALL on the woman.  SHE gets to decide whether or not the man is allowed to put the child up for adoption, have an abortion, or even to release him from the obligation.  I did not whine about this at all, I believe the man should be held accountable.  IT WAS YOU THAT WHINED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT GO FOR THE WOMAN.  YOU think that a woman should not be held accountable for getting pregnant; all she has to do is get an abortion.  You fail to realize that the woman should also be held accountable.



> Not really.. 95% of the uncollected child support will always be uncollected child support. It is totally unenforced.
> How the fuck is this REQUIRING a man to take responsibility for his actions???
> You whiny little bitch.



Show a SINGLE statistic here.  Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is LIE.  Wagers are garnished, homes taken and the law comes back to a man that does not pay with an iron fist.  I have seen it before. 



> Honey, if a woman pays for an abortion, then she IS taking responsibility for it. She just isn't mothering it, or giving it 9 months of her life. That is the difference that you do not seem to be able to make a connection on.



Excellent, if you have a child and I dont want to take care of it I will just hire a hit man, that is taking responsibility after all.



> The fetus also can't breathe. It cannot be adopted by another family, it cannot be saved if the woman it depends so highly on dies, and it is absolutely and completely prone to ceasing from growing (living, if you will- but without a death certificate, I hardly call this logical) by all of the above.



As stated above, in many partial birth abortions (which you seem to support and all your arguments go out the window) and late term abortions it can.  It has already been pointed out to you that there are many children who survive their mother while in the womb from an accident or other tragedy.  I fail to see how the lack of a death certificate actually means anything either.  If you fail to get one you never were truly alive!!!  PROOF JESUS IS A MYTH  he could not have been alive as he does not have a death certificate.  




> Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?



That is why the first trimester term.  Is that really to much strain on you that you cant decide in that time frame?  



> JD, any trace of reality left your posts when you started talking about your dog getting you pregnant



Wrong thread


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1826036 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > love my child, and want another one,
> ...



I hope JD's kid never pisses her off, since she apparently believes that the "personhood" of children begins and ends with whether or not their mothers like them and find them convenient.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Samson said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1828150 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't aware that location was a factor in homicide laws.

FYI, abortion isn't homicide precisely because it's not illegal.  It's killing, not murder.

I also wasn't aware that a willingness to pretend that facts don't exist was required for intelligent conversation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1828224 said:
			
		

> > You're one of the many whose minds have been set so concretly, that there can be no intelligent conversation with you about the subject: Abortion is Homocide. This absurd notion is ok, only if you ignore the fact that Homocide victims are not inside anyone else's womb.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do so many people who want to kill their unborn children refuse to open a dictionary?



Because it's frigging hard to rationalize something you know is wrong if you're not able to blur definitions and distinctions.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832405 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



So what we're saying here is there's no need for evidence? We should just take your word, or prove your point ourselves?

Thanks, I generally assume people who can't back up their bullshit are full of...bullshit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1829957 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice topic-hop.  "I can't sustain the argument that being inside someone's body makes one part of that body, so I'll just skip over and pretend we were talking about the right to evict."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Very true.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1831194 said:
			
		

> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly.
> ...



Parasitism -  an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Without the added factor of some other problem, such as lack of adequate nutrition or a health problem on the mother's part, pregnancy does not harm the mother.  Indeed, a woman's body is designed for pregnancy to occur.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> You&#8217;re damn right it should be illegal and there is not a SINGLE GOD DAMN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT RESONABLE SUPPORTS PARTAL BIRTH ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE BIRTHING PROSESS.



There are numerous reasons to continue partial birth abortions.

1- Women are completely sovereign over the bodies., They are FREE people . They don't owe you or the state an explanation.

2-  Fetuses are POTENTIAL human beings, as such,  they have no rights until birth.

3. If fetuses are important to you,  let the putative mothers know that you will adopt their offsprings, no questions asked.


.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

Children aren't a punishment. However, pregnancy is a consequence. 

I'm not going to even address the rest of your insane post. Yes, women are sovereign over their own bodies. That doesn't mean they can use their bodies to kill others, inside or outside of it.

If you aren't ready to have a child, don't have sex.

Pretty basic stuff.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1831275 said:
			
		

> A parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.
> 
> 
> Ahmadjian, Vernon; Paracer, Surindar (2000), _Symbiosis: an introduction to biological associations_, Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-195-11806-5
> ...



Look at your own definition.  The mother isn't harmed by the fetus, so a fetus is not a parasite.

As a matter of fact, I've always benefitted to a certain extent from pregnancy.  It has its discomforts, as any sudden increase in body mass would, but it also produces positive aspects.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



JD seems to think that because people sometimes die on their own, that means it's okay to kill them.

Hmmm.  People fall off of cliffs on their own sometimes.  I doubt JD would think that makes it okay for me to push her off of one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1832175 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're thinking of ancephaly, the lack of a brain.  Hydroencephalitis is swelling of the brain caused by too much fluid.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

I'm still dying to know how she could count miscarriages where the mothers didn't know they were pregnant.

If they didn't know they were pregnant...they wouldn't know they were miscarrying...

It makes no sense atall.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Children aren't a punishment.



They are if the mom is not emotionally or financially ready.



> However, pregnancy is a consequence.



That 's the reason we have abortion on demand.



> If you aren't ready to have a child, don't have sex.



We are going to fuck 24/7 - we love it. Don't blame me because no one will touch you with a ten foot pole.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

Who's punishing them, then? God?

Burden and punishment are not equivalent terms. But then, we've yet to see you or JD say anything intelligent, so I'm not surprised by this latest display of stupidity.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Children aren't a punishment.
> ...



Who the fuck is "we"? 

Abortion on demand is baby murder on demand. Embrace it, loser.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

Enough about dead babies that grow and are alive cause they grow but aren't alive because they aren't breathing at the momwent and human-dog hybrids (as amusing as JD's little comedy routine was for a short while)...

Does anyone have any objection to this reasoning?



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
			
		

> I support abortion up to 6 weeks after conception. This is based on the evidence I've seen which suggests that the regions of the brain which give rise to sentience develop _possibly as early as 6-7 weeks after conception_. Once this occurs, we are dealing with a sentient mind- a true person. Prior to the emergence of the mind capable of perceiving its own existence and/or the world around it, we are dealing with a living entity that possesses no _selfhood_. Thus, ending the life of such a creature is fundamentally the same as letting the body of the braindead die- the individual does not exist as such and the tissue itself possesses only sentimental value in its association in our minds with the individual.
> 
> This being said, finding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.





			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822998 said:
			
		

> APPENDIX:I also support abortion as a necessary, if undesirable, option in medical emergencies threaten the life of mother and/or child (it's better to save one life than to allow two to die)


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it. 

Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?

I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



It doesn't include you, that's for sure.



> Abortion on demand is baby murder on demand. Embrace it, loser.



You are going to die with your hymen intact. Embrace it loser.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.



I never denied that it's human. It's human by definition and any DNA lab can confirm that. I see this issue as being very similar to that of braindeath and 'pulling the plug'. If the mind is gone, the individual no longer exists. You're no longer caring for the _person_, merely for the body which once housed the person. Similarly, in early-stage abortion we're dealing with a human,, but no mind has emerged. There is no individual or sentience- the very thing that separates a human from a plant or a bacterium. In such a scenario we're dealing with a human animal, but not with a person.

While it's true that not being able to detect brainwaves does not necessarily mean they're not present, not being able to detect a heartbeat doesn't mean someone's heart's not beating (although such instances are rare with modern medicine). However, if the structures of the brain which gives rise to the mind have not developed, there can be no question that they are not active, for they do not even exist yet.


> Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?



I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.



> I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.



Should we, then, keep a body alive on life support forever? should we replace organs as they fail until we have little flesh at all and keep the machiones running for no intelligible reason? You reach a point where it's just absurd and I've seen no other meaningful measure than what I've forwarded (although I am by no means the only one to propose it). Your words may sound good, but they're not really meaningful and your ideals are neither pragmatic or useful in the real world.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

Cuminthetumy, attacking Allie on a personal level does nothing to refute her(?) assertions or strengthen your own arguments.

Can we please have a mature conversation like adults? We got enough childishness from, JD's posts to last the rest of the thread.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834000 said:
			
		

> Cuminthetumy, attacking Allie on a personal level does nothing to refute her(?) assertions or strengthen your own arguments.
> 
> Can we please have a mature conversation like adults? We got enough childishness from, JD's posts to last the rest of the thread.



Identify the FACTS upon which you rely to conclude that Allie's arguments are pure as the white driven snow. Specifically, that she does not have a hidden agenda.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

> Identify the FACTS upon which you rely to conclude that Allie's arguments are pure as the white driven snow



Well, seeing as I'm disagreeing with Allie right now, I''m sure she'll present her reasoning and evidence during the course of our discussion if you'll be so kind as to stfu for a while while the grown-ups are talking.


----------



## HUGGY (Dec 22, 2009)

*What should abortion laws be? 
*

Retroactive.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Hard to do with 4 kids and a granddaughter.

I guess it is pretty prestigious to be the first 12 y.o. in the class who gets knocked up by her brother, but you need to step back a minute and think things through, to save your uterus and your sanity for a day when you might acutally need it.

Just say no.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about, idiot? How on earth does another poster prove my arguments are pure as the driven snow, or that I DON'T have a hidden agenda?

Have you had any education at all? Because I'm starting to feel sort of bad.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834110 said:
			
		

> Whether she has an agenda or not doesn't matter; it's the validity of the arguments that matters.



True.

Thus far she has advanced no valid arguments.

.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 22, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.
> 
> Babies didn't used to be able to survive if they were more than 8 weeks premature. Should we have been aborting them up to 7 months then, because technology hadn't caught up with their needs?
> 
> I don't believe in the destruction of any human force, regardless of how capable that person is of thinking or communicating to us.



So you are against hormonal birth control, then also? Or the Plan B pill, which causes the uterus to become an even more than usually difficult place for the fertilized egg to implant itself, (if it doesn't kill off the sperm, in the first place- yet another life force..)- And then lets not forget about menstrual periods.  What a waste of human life force.. 

And let's get really specific here, and beg the question of the billions of sperm that are lost, even when an egg is fertilized. We have such advanced technology these days, that it is a shame to let these human forces go to waste, and be killed by lack of use.

You do need to understand that something not being used is okay, and natural. Fetuses and uteruses are all included in this "non use" scenario. It may be used for a certain amount of time, but at some given point, a decision is made, either consciously, or unconsciously, whether the fertilized egg implants, or does not implant, or stays or is removed, or rejected. 
This is just a non use issue. 

And when you come to speak about technology, you also need to realize that just because it is available, does not mean it has to be utilized. 

A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose. 

We can't keep anything alive forever, even if we wanted to, and nothing is entitled to remain alive for any period of time, whatsoever. 

It only has the right to "live" as long as IT possibly can, in the environment it resides in. 

Children and adults die of starvation all day long.. I hate this bitter truth, but the fact remains- as much as they do have the right to life, if they do not have the means to live, then they simply can not do such a thing. 

Did you know that paprika can cause a miscarriage? Oh yes- that and many other herbs are available to take a whole lot of, and naturally rid one's self of a pregnancy. If the paprika does it's job of rejecting the fetus or embryo, whether this was intentional or not, then the embryo in question simply gets passed out, in a little blob, and usually flushed, because the woman will generally not even know that an embryo ever existed. 
Vitamin C is another powerful morning after pill. It takes about 4,000 Mgs a day for a week, but it will aide in redicing the chances of a fertilized egg actually attaching itself to the uterine walls. 

Sorry to have to break all of this to you, but people really need to understand that a right to life, by any definition, law, or purpose, will do nothing to change the fact that nothing in this world has an entitlement to live. 

I support your decisions, though- to not abort. I simply do not think that legislation should try to tighten up on or dismantle a woman's right to choose what her body goes through, during any period of time in her life, including during a pregnancy.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 22, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.



Really? Then what is it a right to? 



JD_2B said:


> We can't keep anything alive forever, even if we wanted to, and nothing is entitled to remain alive for any period of time, whatsoever.
> 
> It only has the right to "live" as long as IT possibly can, in the environment it resides in.
> 
> Children and adults die of starvation all day long.. I hate this bitter truth, but the fact remains- as much as they do have the right to life, if they do not have the means to live, then they simply can not do such a thing.



I really wish you could see how ridicuous a contrivance you have had to resort to. This isn't complicated. You would never advocate the killing of an innocent person. In order to reconcile that you abortion on demand goof balls have to come up with some way of considering un-birthed life as something less than a human. The compromise the original poster arrived at is a perfectly reasonable enough. Most people aren't so naive as to believe that at the moment of conception that sack of cells is just as human as it would be once it reached term and was born. It is just as unfathomable that YOU can belive that a child is so significantly less than human the moment before it is born aborting it up to that point is justified.

Take a step back and look at all the contrivances you abortionists have had to invent to justify your stance. Abortion instead of kill, fetus instead of baby. When in reality every excuse you have come up with to not protect this unborn life would apply to any child up to about a teenager.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > A right to life is not a entitlement to live, or remain alive, in any event or definition you wish to choose.
> ...



*Individuals* have a right to life and to defend the same. "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.

That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I love this post.

The first point, 





> "A" - an individual - has no right to kill "B" another individual.



Shoots you and JD right out of the water and destorys your lame attempts to defend killing babies through this thread (and JD's defense of killing a baby so long as the umbilical cord isn't cut). You just aregued that only two of the positions stated in this thread are valid and meet your criterion: Min and that of those who oppose abortion in all instances




> That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".



Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834841 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


*
INDIVIDUAL not fetus*




> That does not mean that "A" must pay for "B's " health care, feed him, clothe him, shelter him.....and all other welfare state "rights".





> Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.




We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies, 

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 22, 2009)

> *INDIVIDUAL not fetus*



A fetus is an individual save in the extenuating circumstances I posted earlier.

Why do you people have to lie and change your definitions all the time?

A fetus is a child. It's usually the child of the woman carrying it. Hence the phrase 'unborn child'.



> > Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



wait.. now you're mad about someone being forced to put clothes on a fetus? Once again, you're on your own little world where reality doesn't apply, I see.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1833903 said:
			
		

> Who's punishing them, then? God?
> 
> Burden and punishment are not equivalent terms. But then, we've yet to see you or JD say anything intelligent, so I'm not surprised by this latest display of stupidity.



Seems to me like crappy parents like that would be more of a punishment for the kid than the other way around, even though the poor child didn't do anything to deserve punishment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1833948 said:
			
		

> Enough about dead babies that grow and are alive cause they grow but aren't alive because they aren't breathing at the momwent and human-dog hybrids (as amusing as JD's little comedy routine was for a short while)...
> 
> Does anyone have any objection to this reasoning?
> 
> ...



I object to it because I don't consider higher brain function to be a relevant cut-off.  We give more respect to the life of an endangered titmouse than we do to the life of the youngest of our own species.  I think it's dangerous to start setting limits based on things like intelligence and brain function, because then it becomes necessary to explain just how much intelligence and how much brain function is required, and to explain why it's not okay to kill other humans who don't meet up to an arbitrary standard of same.  And sure, YOU might be able to delineate and avoid going down the slippery slope, but it opens the door to others who can't or don't want to.

I think a fetus is valuable and important for the same reason I think any human is valuable and important:  because he's human and alive.  It's objective, undeniable (unless you're the sort of person who also believes dogs and humans can mate), and clear, and shuts the door definitively on people who might decide to play havoc with your arguments to allow them to bump off anyone who happens to be inconvenient to them at the moment.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Who gives a fuck what her motivations are?  What matters is if you can refute her arguments, not whether or not you approve of the reason she's making them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834110 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"Valid" is not defined as "Contumacious likes them and agrees with them".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834841 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Get a dictionary, Noah Webster.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

fetus -  an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth

baby -  an extremely young child

child -  an unborn or recently born person;  a son or daughter of human parents

Sure sounds to ME like different words for the same thing.


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:

TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -

1.  Register every single voter who is anti Abortion.

2.  Outlaw every abortion, even ones that put the mothers life in danger, after all, there have been huge advancements in medicine.

3.  End all "family planning'.

4.  End all education on sex except "abstinence only".  Outlaw any mention of disease or contraceptive.

5.  Begin a "public option" fund by taxing ONLY voters who registered against abortion rights.  That money to be used for prenatal care for women that can't afford such care.

6.  Start a lottery.  Only those who are registered against abortion rights can play.  

7.  Winners get to receive brand new babies.

8.  Losers have to support a woman and her baby if she wants to keep the baby.

9.  "Daily Doubles" get twins.

10.  Children must be cared for for 18 years.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 22, 2009)

I think that would violate the 14th, I'm not sure.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
> 
> TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -
> 
> ...



We'll be taking your advice on abortion right after I find a man with brain damage to advise me on breastfeeding, okay?  Do us all two favors:

1)  Save your advice until someone's stupid enough to ask for it, and
2)  Hold your breath while you wait for that.


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
> ...



I'm pretty sure my plan is better than any plan, no pun intended, "conceived" by any conservative.  Under my plan, they can put all those "Christian sensibilities" into practice.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 22, 2009)

Except the abstinence only part, that part is really stupid. Teenagers have libidos so why would not telling them about contraceptives reduce abortions?


----------



## rdean (Dec 22, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Except the abstinence only part, that part is really stupid. Teenagers have libidos so why would not telling them about contraceptives reduce abortions?



Because, according to conservatives, telling teenagers about contraceptives and what makes a baby and disease gives them a "red light" to have orgies and churn out babies faster than you can say, "Watermelon seed".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



We need non-believers to teach us how to be Christians even less than we need liberal retards to teach us how to be conservative.  Only a leftist would be stupid and arrogant enough to believe that they're qualified to teach others how to be something that they aren't themselves.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834874 said:
			
		

> > *INDIVIDUAL not fetus*
> 
> 
> A fetus is an individual save in the extenuating circumstances I posted earlier.



It is too.. Yes it is!! It may not be all the way individual, but yeah huhhhhh uh huhhhh yes it isssssss, even if it isntttttt!!! <proletarian having a tantrum, stamping feet, whining loudly, annoying all> Wah wah fucking wah. 



> Why do you people have to lie and change your definitions all the time?



It is or it isnt, P. YOU are the only one picking and choosing here. 



> A fetus is a child. It's usually the child of the woman carrying it. Hence the phrase 'unborn child'.



It is in fact INSIDE of the woman, making it a NON SINGULAR entity. The pregnant woman eats for two, not for just one. If the fetus's only chance of livlihood is brought about by it's NEEDING OF *ONE* living thing to chew food and eat FOR it to be nourished it COMPLETELY LOSES ANY RIGHTS TO INDIVIDUALITY. And no, you can't count babies needing their formula made or breast feeding, etc, because ANYONE WHO LACTATES CAN FEED THEM. In the face of an embryo or fetus, the reliance is on the life of the woman to whom it is a part of, for the duration of the pre-life process of gestation. Hence, it is not a fucking individual. 



> > > Awesome. Now you wish to argue that parents shouldn't have to feed or clothe their children. Just so you know, babies die if you never feed them. That would be killing your baby by any sane definition. So your earlier assertion makes the rest of you post- well, bullshit.
> >
> >
> > We are talking about FETUSES not children or babies,
> ...



Parents DONT have to feed or clothe their children. Anyone can do that. 
Many children forage for their own food. 
Many other children are left to die, and either die or are saved by some other person, who may or may not be their parent. 

Being cared for when you are helpless, is a sociological expectation, not a right. 

Welcome to reality, numbnuts.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 22, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.

If you want to put forth a valid argument, then try NOT throwing up ad hominems every time someone else posts something that you have no logical, winning response to. 

Epic Fail. As per the usual.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 22, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm too short-sighted to know what I personally think and feel, whereas you are so brilliant that you are prepared to tell me all about myself, despite having never met me.

About the level of intelligence I would expect from someone who thinks dogs and humans can interbreed.

If YOU want to put forth a valid argument, try not arguing other people's thoughts, opinions, and motivations for them . . . right after you get a brain transplant.

That's so far beyond an epic fail, they'd have to invent new terminology to express it.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 22, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1833993 said:
			
		

> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > It's better than partial birth, but just because we aren't able to detect brain activity doesn't mean it's not human, or it's not killing a human to destroy it.
> ...



Your comparison is bad.  There is a big difference between someone who is brain dead and who has a small chance of recovering to full consciousness and a fetus that has an excellent chance (taking abortion out of the picture of course) of gaining consciousness.  Can you really not see the difference between the two?

As an edit, should we "pull the plug" on someone that had the same chance as a fetus of gaining consciousness?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I object to it because I don't consider higher brain function to be a relevant cut-off.  We give more respect to the life of an endangered titmouse than we do to the life of the youngest of our own species.  I think it's dangerous to start setting limits based on things like intelligence and brain function, because then it becomes necessary to explain just how much intelligence and how much brain function is required, and to explain why it's not okay to kill other humans who don't meet up to an arbitrary standard of same.  And sure, YOU might be able to delineate and avoid going down the slippery slope, but it opens the door to others who can't or don't want to.




I never spoke of intelligence. If I supported killing lifeforms simply because they demonstrated no signs of intelligence, many politicians would be first on my list. When we speak of why it is or is not acceptable to end the life of a human organism, we must be strive for sound reasoning. As I said before, how many body parts should you replace to keep the braindead alive? If we accept that there is a point where keeping the heart and lungs going and the other tissues alive- even though the head may be gone completely, depending on what new medical machines may be devised, whe are forced to state where that line is drawn. 'Intelligence' is useless and subjective, not to mention that such a standard flies in the face of the very concept of human rights. Why let the body die when the head has been destroyed? What is the fundamental difference, if not sentience and the existence of the individual mind? And that is the difference that determines whether the termination of life in one scenario, does not it logically apply to another scenario, as well?


> I think a fetus is valuable and important for the same reason I think any human is valuable and important:  because he's human and alive.



Again, what if I can keep the heart and lungs going and the tissues alive though the head is gone and the brain long destroyed? Am I to be expected to keep those tissues alive forever? How many parts can be changed for machines before itis acceptable to let the remaining tissue die? How much of a human body is needed for it to be considered 'a human' instead of simply human tissues? If the mind is not the key, then what is? What alternative do you propose?



> It's objective, undeniable (unless you're the sort of person who also believes dogs and humans can mate), and clear, and shuts the door definitively on people who might decide to play havoc with your arguments to allow them to bump off anyone who happens to be inconvenient to them at the moment.



Your very limited argument leads to absurdities like those I've shown. If the mind is not the key factor, then what is?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

JD, if twins share a liver,is each an individual with his/her own mind and rights, or does one own the other?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Christopher said:


> Your comparison is bad.  There is a big difference between someone who is brain dead and who has a small chance of recovering to full consciousness and a fetus that has an excellent chance (taking abortion out of the picture of course) of gaining consciousness.  Can you really not see the difference between the two?
> 
> As an edit, should we "pull the plug" on someone that had the same chance as a fetus of gaining consciousness?




Neither currently possesses consciousness an d I'm not familiar with anyone who was truly braindead ever regaining consciousness (the electrochemical processes of the brain, to my knowledge, have never been restarted once they stopped).  Your argument is basically a variant of the 'potential life' argument and very easily leads to absurdities, such as arguing that any given ovum or sperm theoretically become part of a system that could become sentient or that a computer network could theoretically develop sentience. You end up needing to find a way to determine the probability of sentience emerging and then settling on and defending a likelihood at which to place the cut-off. Prior to the emergence of the mind, the tissue is no more a person than an arm or leg by itself.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 23, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Why would someone need to be a Christian to know what the Bible expects out of Christians?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

> I never forwarded biological viability as an argument and have refuted it in this very thread as highly subjective and of little, if any, value, so I'm not sure whom you're you're referring to.


That is in reference to something I have been pointing out to JD and she has been ignoring and rehashing her old arguments again.  I must say JD, you continually point out that a fetus is not an individual because it cannot survive without the mother and yet you have no counterpoint to the fact that a well developed fetus is fully capable of surviving out of the womb.  Essentially you believe that a child can and should be killed if the mother does not want the inconnivance of a live birth or C-section.  Honestly, do the lives of children mean that little to you?

Oh, and I am still waiting on those statistics from your flame answer to the personal responsibility of the man.


> JD
> What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.



This is not about control of women but protection of children.  I view children as the most important asset we have.  I do not want to control women but just as it is illegal for you to commit murder unless in self defense, I believe killing a fetus should be regulated within certain limits.  It seems that the majority here are in agreement.  I do not see why the OP is such a bad compromise for you.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

@proletarian
I hold almost the same view as you have put forth but would argue that 6 weeks is too soon to say the brain is developing.  The neural network is starting to appear but any electrical activity in the brain is random and the basis for the mind is not present.  The only supporting evidence for 6 week brain activity as sentience I can find comes from biased sources.  I did find much evidence from scientific sources around the 20 week mark and that is why I advocate for the first trimester.  Even very staunch left wing abortionist sources admit to the development of higher functions within the brain and the classic &#8220;ridges&#8221; that give humans their increased thought capabilities from week 26 to 30.  I believe that the first three months give a clear line and plenty of time for a woman to make a choice while still staying out of the window of consciousness.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

@ rdean
What you are saying is the belief of those so called &#8220;wingnuts&#8221; not your average conservative.  If the republicans were that much of a hard liner on abortion then Roe vs. Wade would have been overturned in the Bush years.  The fact is, most republicans understand that abortion needs to exist for the time being in one form or another, just not in the insane form it is in now where you can (in some states) kill a child after birth as long as the umbilical cord is still attached.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

@ AllieBaba  
Your stance is the one I am actually most interested as JD continually proves to lack any argument or intelligence and Contumacious  has not put forth any points yet.  The real question is where you draw the line at.  As proletarian pointed out, sperm have the same potential as a zygote.  I cannot find a technical reason to put the line at conception and therefore can see no way to argue that that is where the law should stand.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

After a little more digging I went and looked up the Roe v. Wade case in the Supreme Court as this is of major concern here.
From FindLaw | Cases and Codes 
Be warned if you read ^ it is long and much is in legalese.


> In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163]   term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."
> With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.
> This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.
> With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. *If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164]   during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. *


  Apparently the court DID feel viability was an issue and allowed states to make such laws as to enforce abortion bans on viable fetuses!  In many states they have attempted to make those bans but the court has been firing them down due to most lacking in a provision to ensure the safety of the mother.  I wonder why that provision is absent in many cases since it does at least seem there is a supermajority that believe the health of the mother is one such reason an abortion should be performed?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

FA,

As I said, finding reliable information on the matter has been difficult. Do you have links to the sources you used to determine your timeline?


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1835828 said:
			
		

> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > Your comparison is bad.  There is a big difference between someone who is brain dead and who has a small chance of recovering to full consciousness and a fetus that has an excellent chance (taking abortion out of the picture of course) of gaining consciousness.  Can you really not see the difference between the two?
> ...



You did not answer either question I asked.  Please answer the questions; it is necessary for me to understand your position.

Why would anyone argue about an ovum or sperm being a human life?  Science already defines that human life begins development at fertilization/conception.  That to me is the most clearly defined point of the beginning of a human life.  All I was doing in my previous post was pointing out the problem with your comparison.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

> Why would anyone argue about an ovum or sperm being a human life?



The 'potential life' argument actually has been forwarded many times.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836330 said:
			
		

> > Why would anyone argue about an ovum or sperm being a human life?
> 
> 
> 
> The 'potential life' argument actually has been forwarded many times.



I understand that, however, my question was more rhetorical as I was making the point of when science defines human life beginning.

Care to answer the other questions I asked?  I did ask nicely.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

I answered every question. Not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills. If you read what I posted, you can extrapolate my answer to just about any scenario you can imagine- because that's what happens when you're consistent.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




And yet conservatives want to teach practises such as "abstinance only" when it clearly doesn't work.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 23, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.



I want to control a woman's life to the extent I want to control anyone's life who is planning to take the innocent life of another. Period.

The only thing that has become apparent here is that you are to narrow minded to even consider changing your warped definition of life as is it clearly different than the accepted defintion posted.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 23, 2009)

I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.
I don't think that any government should mandate that a citizen of their country should be reduced to a life support system against her wishes.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Alvin said:


> I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.


Ignoring the bullshit at the end of your post, answer me this: What fundamental aspect of the child's very nature changes from the moment before the head starts to crown to the moment the last toe leaves the woman's body?


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836348 said:
			
		

> I answered every question. Not my fault you lack reading comprehension skills. If you read what I posted, you can extrapolate my answer to just about any scenario you can imagine- because that's what happens when you're consistent.



Here was one you did not answer:

Should we "pull the plug" on someone that had the same chance as a fetus of gaining consciousness?

It was a simple yes or no question.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

I cannot tell you whether you should end the life of tissue or not. What objection can be raised to keeping tissue alive, so long as it's not coming out of my or the public pocket? if you have the money and wish to keep the tissue of a human arm alive because of some unhealthy attachment to something that was part of the body inhabited by your dead mother, that's your business.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836392 said:
			
		

> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.
> ...



At one point it's still stuck in the mother. At the other it isn't.

You have a point?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

> At one point it's still stuck in the mother. At the other it isn't.



At one point you're in a room, at the other you aren't. Your location has changed. Your nature has not changed.

Now stop being purposely retarded and answer the question.


----------



## Alvin (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836423 said:
			
		

> > At one point it's still stuck in the mother. At the other it isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, your nature hasn't. But then again the room rarley has an opinion on the movements of the people within it (to use your analogy). Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 23, 2009)

Alvin said:


> I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.
> I don't think that any government should mandate that a citizen of their country should be reduced to a life support system against her wishes.



Again a position that can only be supported by a ridiculously convenient narrow definition of life that is basically a born, fully gestated child. 

I'm not advocating a black or white guideline here. Medical complications I don't have an issue with parent(s) choosing what they want to do.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Alvin said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836423 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A parent generally where a child goes for years after birth. And just how many years of responsibility outweigh human life? what if I don't want to deed the creature for another year (she's 17) or ten (he's 8)?

And what of the concept of the most fundamental of human rights? Can the State decide to kill anyone on welfare, since it feeds and clothes them- and can pass laws and use police to eh military to enforce them, to control where they go? By your 'reasoning' (I use the term very loosely), prisoners, refugees, and innocents imprisoned by genocidal dictators can rightfully be killed since they are a burden unto others.

If you object to such actions, then you've contradicted your own argument and admit that your assertions are absurd. if you support such actions, then frankly noone gives a damned about you or your twisted views.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Hers the latest I've found on the subject

http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebs...d_Ethics/Abortion/concept_of_personhood_4.php


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836415 said:
			
		

> I cannot tell you whether you should end the life of tissue or not. What objection can be raised to keeping tissue alive, so long as it's not coming out of my or the public pocket? if you have the money and wish to keep the tissue of a human arm alive because of some unhealthy attachment to something that was part of the body inhabited by your dead mother, that's your business.



You are talking about a fetus now and no longer comparing it to a brain dead person?  Let me try to make sure I understand your position with an example. What you seem to be saying is that if a doctor told some parents that their 10 year old son had an 85% chance (miscarriages are somewhere between 10-20% of pregnancies) of regaining consciousness, you would leave the decision up to the parents about whether to pull the plug or not.  Is that what you are saying?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Christopher said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836415 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Consciousness =/= sentience, you twit.

Get a dictionary, learn to stay on topic, and then come back.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836730 said:
			
		

> Christopher said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836415 said:
> ...



In other words, you refuse to answer the question.  Resorting to name calling does not further your position.  Here is a source for you: Sentience Synonym | Synonym of Sentience and Antonym of Sentience at Thesaurus.com
Some synonyms for sentience:


> Synonyms:
> acquaintance, acquaintanceship, alertness, aliveness, appreciation, apprehension, attention, attentiveness, bodhi, cognizance, comprehension, *consciousness*, discernment, enlightenment, experience, familiarity, information, keenness, mindfulness, perception, realization, recognition, sensibility, sentience, understanding



Note the one in bold.  Regardless, let me change the question just for you anyway:

If a doctor told some parents that their son had an 85% chance of gaining consciousness and becoming sentient, you would leave the decision up to the parents about whether to pull the plug or not?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

You really need to go ask an English professor to explain it to you. I don't have the patience top fix your illiteracy. Unless, of course, you're just being willfully dishonest.


----------



## Christopher (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836964 said:
			
		

> You really need to go ask an English professor to explain it to you. I don't have the patience top fix your illiteracy. Unless, of course, you're just being willfully dishonest.



Youre now focused on definitions to avoid answering the question.  Here is another definition of sentience:

sentience - definition of sentience by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


> n.
> 1.	The quality or state of being sentient; *consciousness*.
> 2.	Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.



Go ahead; prove that consciousness is not considered a synonym to sentience.  Ive provided plenty of evidence they are synonyms.  It was you who first told me to look the definitions up in a dictionary, right?  Now I have to talk to an English professor?

You continue to refuse to answer a simple question and instead you seem to want to play games with semantics and philosophical definitions.  If that is not that case, perhaps you would care to explain why any differences between the definitions of consciousness and sentience matter with regards to answering the simple question I have asked.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

> prove that consciousness is not considered a synonym to sentience.



You're retarded. When I knock you out, do you cease to be a sentient being? 

You're the idiot trying to play word games


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1837182 said:
			
		

> > prove that consciousness is not considered a synonym to sentience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hes got you fool


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 23, 2009)

Of course, the poster who's never heard of an apostrpohe wants to chime in about literacy.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2009)

rdean said:


> If the conservatives are totally serious about ending abortion, this is the way to do it:
> 
> TEN STEPS TO END ABORTION FOREVER -
> 
> ...



I'm the only one that came up with any kind of plan that takes care of the woman, takes care of the baby and satisfies the Christians.

The rights "entire" plan is "make abortion illegal" AND THAT'S IT!

Well, it doesn't work that way.  You can't just say, "Don't do that" and then walk away, "There, my job is done".


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 23, 2009)

> Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.


  Nor does she, that is what adoption is for.  The only inconvenience suffered is the carrying and delivery and I feel that is not take precedence to being cut up into small pieces and thrown away.  Heck, pain killers are not even used for partial birth abortions and I cant see death by chemicals as being pleasant. 


> If a doctor told some parents that their son had an 85% chance of gaining consciousness and becoming sentient, you would leave the decision up to the parents about whether to pull the plug or not?


Look, at that point the brain is still in existence and functioning, just not fully.  You may disagree but the possibility of gaining a self is not the issue for me and pro, it is the attaining it in the first place.  In your example the child is not brain dead, there is no recovering from brain death.  That is a coma and coma patients are not brain dead.  They retain no new memories in most cases but they are still functioning at some level.

No rdean , youre the only one here who is being facetious and it is not appreciated.  We _are_ attempting to have an intelligent conversation here.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1837182 said:
			
		

> > prove that consciousness is not considered a synonym to sentience.
> 
> 
> You're retarded. When I knock you out, do you cease to be a sentient being?
> ...



Yes actually, someone who is unconscious is not sentient, you fucking moron. 

How is Christopher playing mind games, anyways? He is GIVING you the dictionary definitions, PLUS the synonyms to it. 

It is not anyone's fault that you cannot come to terms with anything. Good Grief, I should have kept you on ignore, you dumb twat.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> > Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.
> 
> 
> Nor does she, that is what adoption is for.  The only inconvenience suffered is the carrying and delivery and I feel that is not take precedence to being cut up into small pieces and thrown away.  Heck, pain killers are not even used for partial birth abortions and I cant see death by chemicals as being pleasant.
> ...



Well, technically speaking, if the kid does not have a living will, which I don't even think a minor CAN have one anyways, then even a kid who has an 85% chance of regaining consciousness can be removed from life support. 
Life support is a sociological responsibility, not a RIGHT. 

A person can have a major head injury, not be brain dead, but have swelling, and the parents can choose to not allow them to even START being on life support. 
The parents can choose whether the person even gets a blood transfusion, if they want, or if the person should be on a ventilator, or get mouth to mouth, even. Its a little thing called a DNR order (no not resuscitate) and the VAST majority of those, for kids, come from parents and doctors. 

It is not KILLING or MURDERING someone to remove them from their source of life support, or to deny them life support technology. People may have the right to life, but they do not have an entitlement to live. 

Tough shit. Deal with it.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836392 said:
			
		

> Alvin said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that the decision should be the mothers until that child qualifies for a birth certificate. At which point killing the child is murder.
> ...



It breathes, and sustains its own life.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1836423 said:
			
		

> > at one point it's still stuck in the mother. At the other it isn't.
> 
> 
> at one point you're in a room, at the other you aren't. Your location has changed. Your nature has not changed.
> ...



women are not fucking rooms, dillrod. They're people.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What is wrong with those ideas??? You are too short sighted to see that ALL you want is to control the woman's life- and it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever.
> ...



INNOCENT LIFE OF ANOTHER..

Lets dissect that inference, shall we??

Another, means (first and foremost) that there is an OTHER PERSON involved. 

No there is no OTHER involved. There is just one. The fetus is not an OTHER to anyone. It is not the father's OTHER child, until it is born, and becomes a BEING. 

Any place the woman goes, the fetus (who is inside of her) goes, too. EVEN A FUNERAL HOME. 

Thus, the fucking fetus is not an OTHER, it is one and the same, because it is subjected and prone to any ailment or condition the woman experiences that might endanger her own life. If her life was NEVER endangered to the extent that the fetus would cease from growing, then you might actually have an "other" argument here.. but you DONT. 

The right to life is NOT (Lather rinse, and look in the fucking mirror and repeat this to yourself) an entitlement to LIVE.


----------



## rdean (Dec 23, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> > Neither does the room have to deal with your feeding, shelter, healthcare, education, personal/moral/ethical upbringing for at least the next 18 years.
> 
> 
> *  Nor does she, that is what adoption is for. * The only inconvenience suffered is the carrying and delivery and I feel that is not take precedence to being cut up into small pieces and thrown away.  Heck, pain killers are not even used for partial birth abortions and I can&#8217;t see death by chemicals as being pleasant.
> ...



Except there are way more children than couples who want children.  Even less with some states banning gay and single parent adoption.

Without abortion, there would be even more children to overwhelm the system.  

Sorry, that was NOT a plan, it was a "wish".

As dumb as the everyone called my plan, it was the ONLY one so far.  The anti abortion childrens lottery.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 23, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Then all you had say was 'yes you are right about my warped definition'. How a child is less human 30 seconds before it is out of the womb is beyond me and most other rationale 'beings'. It can feel, it is aware. It can live on it's own if necessary. The difference, is it's location. That's it. It is not one in the same. It is human being living inside another human being. For you to define as less than that to protect the 'sacred' rights of a mother to have change of heart seconds before giving birth is absolutely disgusting. Given that, I think there's a better argument for YOU to be not granted 'other'-hood than an unborn child


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 23, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive. 

Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective. 

Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you.. 

But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God. Just as much as he hates murderers. Believe it. He wrote the fucking commandments, not you.

When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God. 

When was the last time you slept with a married or divorced woman? Sin!!

When was the last time you wished you had something that someone else has, or said "Must be nice!!!" Sin sin sin....

When was the last time you advocated for the death penalty? Wrath- another sin.

When was the last time you said "God Damnit!!" Sinner.

Don't you DARE try to compare ABORTION (which is not at all murder, the biiiiiible telllllllllls meeee sooooo) or MURDER (an actual sin) to any of the other deadly sins, you fucking hypocrite.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 23, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive.



The problem is you have zero credible basis for any of this. You can't claim a potential 'being' isn't entitled to live, less so than an actual being, without defing what a potential being is in the first place. The fact of the matter is simply this. You would not condone the murder of an innocent human being. You happen to also hold a belief that woman should also have the right to choose whenever for whatever reason. Somehow those two things must be reconciled. So you have chosen to to define an unborn child as less than a human being. Problem solved. Problem is just because you want it to be that way doesn't make it so.

But let's assume it does. Unfortunately your argument above is a contradiction in of itself. After all if one is not entitled to technology that helps one become a being, how can they also be entited to use technology to prevent one from being?  



JD_2B said:


> Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective.



This is purely semantics. A desperate and disgusting attempt to reconcile, irreconcilable beliefs. How is a human less being (first I hope you read that twice and listen to how absolutely ridiculous it sounds) before it is out of the womb than after?



JD_2B said:


> Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you..
> 
> But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God. Just as much as he hates murderers. Believe it. He wrote the fucking commandments, not you.
> 
> ...



Quoting scriptuire or christianity only works under the assumption that the person you are debating actually defines themselves as a christian. You assumed incorrectly. My sense of right and wrong doesn't come from some book or religion. Murder is simply defined. The taking of an innocent life. It is you that is playing semantic games so you can sleep at night and tell yourself I didn't kill a human being, I didn't kill a human being. As I said before anyone who can and believe it, shoudl ask themselves whether they themselves deserve to be counted among us human beings.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 24, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Again, the right of a 9 month old fetus to be born, does not give it some entitlement to live. Just because it can, does not mean it will. And it does not mean that the parents and doctors and taxpayers all have to pay to put that child through resuscitation methods, and life support, if things don't go as planned, either. Technology is not a fucking entitlement, and neither is the state of being or BECOMING (in this case) alive.
> ...



If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion. This is because a fetus is in fact prone to ceasing from continuing its existence in the uterus at any given time. A right to life is not an entitlement to live. This is a fact, and you simply do not want to face it. Semantics is another story- I refuse to argue in circles about this though. I simply refuse to allow you to play the semantics game just because you feel that a fertilized egg is a fucking person. 



> But let's assume it does. Unfortunately your argument above is a contradiction in of itself. After all if one is not entitled to technology that helps one become a being, how can they also be entited to use technology to prevent one from being?


HA I knew you would say that. I must be psychic. You and the semantics game. Geez.
It all comes down to "take the risk, suffer the consequence" right? As if women are the sexual gatekeepers, which we are not. 

Nothing AT ALL, in this world, is entitled to the use of my body, to grow. PERIOD. I am, however, an autonomous being, and can do any number of things, including doing a belly flop off of a high dive, to cause that pregnancy to cease. This is a fact. This is exactly what I would do if I didn't want a pregnancy, and abortion was made illegal. And in the first few weeks, I would accompany this activity with a hearty helping of Vitamin C and Paprika, both of which can induce miscarriage in the first few weeks. THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women.. but that does not make the fetus autonomous, or the woman any less autonomous. The fetus is PRONE to the fact that it is inside of the woman. The woman might not even know it exists.. So if she goes a' climbing and takes a little fall of 15 feet, and her belly hits the rock wall, then bam its all over for your dear innocent little fetusmeister. Too bad so sad. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I do not claim that the fetus is a non human. It simply is not a human "being". I do not agree that any woman who were to choose to destroy the fetus's capability of surviving on its own outside of the uterus, just seconds before it is born, or days, even, is humane or moral. I am not an AMORAL person. I simply understand that different people make choices that are immoral and that I disagree with all the time, and "how bad" that choice is, is entirely subjective.
> ...


Again, I am not the one playing semantics here- you are. I think it is disgusting to choose this, also. 
I also think it is disgusting to lie and to cheat, to steal, and to fantasize about women who are not your wife, to beat on women, to get beat on, etc.. 
I could care less whether the world's belief was that a fetus was a human being before it is born or was not. It still is in the woman's body and as such, is prone to the ceasement of growth, by her life decisions that SHE is ALWAYS allowed to make. 
Also, 10 seconds before it comes out, or the head to toe thing, as long as it has NOT taken a breath of air yet, it can technically GO BACK INSIDE, and grow a little while longer. This is entirely possible, as we have seen in videos of fetal surgery.
If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point. 
Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Lets talk about sin, for instance. You pro lifers are always talking about the "innocent" life- and that is very much a religious deal for you..
> ...



Dollface- even those who are not "innocent" can be murdered. 

This is how I know your claim stems from a religious POV.

Also, Murder is a legal term, and not what happens when a pregnancy ceases to exist. 

I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue that was ready to be removed from MY UTERUS. I paid some doctors to have it removed, and am thankful that I did. I actually sleep quite well, thanks. =)

Fuck off if you want to be abusive and call women who choose when to have children murderers and assume that they should lose sleep over it or suddenly be counted as anything less than human beings. You are only saying those things because your words come from an emotional kneejerk reaction to abortion, and a longing to control and continue to abuse women as a whole.  You are an abuser. Merry Christmas, and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 24, 2009)

> It is not KILLING or MURDERING someone to remove them from their source of life support, or to deny them life support technology. People may have the right to life, but they do not have an entitlement to live.
> 
> Tough shit. Deal with it.



Then, by your own terms, late term abortions should be illegal as much of the time they are viable.  In abortions, you are NOT removing the life support, you are either introducing a life ending chemical or you are going in and cutting the spinal cord at the base and then cutting the dead fetus up to remove it.  Removing it from life support would be through labor or c-section.  You have yet to uphold your insane belief in partial birth and late term abortions.  
   Or have you stopped responding because you realize you have no case?
&#8220;Tough shit. Deal with it.&#8221;


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 24, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion.



If people aren't charged for driving a car when someone else crashes into them, then they shouldn't be charged for shooting someone in the face.

See how retarded what you just said is?


> THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women



Wait... so now you're saying that you have a right to kill anyone you have the ability to kill because you have the ability to kill them?









> I also think it is disgusting to... beat on women,



But not to kill a chi.ld immediately after birth, so long as the umbilical cord is still attached- an act you defended in another thread.




> I could care less whether the world's belief was that a fetus was a human being



And some people could care less whether the world thinks blacks are human beings. That's not an argument.


> Also, 10 seconds before it comes out, or the head to toe thing, as long as it has NOT taken a breath of air yet, it can technically GO BACK INSIDE, and grow a little while longer. This is entirely possible, as we have seen in videos of fetal surgery.
> If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point.



Why are you so stupid?

Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well. 



> But when was the last time you lied? I fucking HATE liars. So does God.



Like you lying about what yyou've said and lying about the definition of life?


> Just as much as he hates murderers.


Perhaps you should take that up with him.


> When was the last time you looked at a person of the opposite sex and even imagined having sex with them?? That is a fucking sin, too, by God.



What you just said is a lie.


> I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue



You said nothing grows that's not alive. Ergo that to which you refer was alive. You caused it to cease to be alive, to die. Ergo, you killed it. If you did nothing wrong, why can't you admit to what you've done? If you don't know what you did was wrong, why can't you face it?


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 24, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1834841 said:
> ...



You are talking about entities that have the *POTENTIAL* to become human beings. 

So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 24, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> You are talking about entities that have the *POTENTIAL* to become human beings.
> 
> So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
> 
> .




It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 24, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1839766 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking about entities that have the *POTENTIAL* to become human beings.
> ...



It's official. You're too retarded to be in this thread. Now get out.

.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 24, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> If people are not prosecuted/ investigated for having a late term miscarriage, then they shouldnt be prosecuted for having an abortion. This is because a fetus is in fact prone to ceasing from continuing its existence in the uterus at any given time. A right to life is not an entitlement to live. This is a fact, and you simply do not want to face it. Semantics is another story- I refuse to argue in circles about this though. I simply refuse to allow you to play the semantics game just because you feel that a fertilized egg is a fucking person.



'Prone to ceasing'? You really are grasping now. By that lame excuse 'abortion' should be allowed after birth as well. Babies are quite prone to ceasing then as well without constant care.



JD_2B said:


> HA I knew you would say that. I must be psychic. You and the semantics game. Geez. It all comes down to "take the risk, suffer the consequence" right? As if women are the sexual gatekeepers, which we are not.



When you choose a behavior you choose the consequences. A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy. 



JD_2B said:


> Nothing AT ALL, in this world, is entitled to the use of my body, to grow. PERIOD. I am, however, an autonomous being, and can do any number of things, including doing a belly flop off of a high dive, to cause that pregnancy to cease. This is a fact. This is exactly what I would do if I didn't want a pregnancy, and abortion was made illegal. And in the first few weeks, I would accompany this activity with a hearty helping of Vitamin C and Paprika, both of which can induce miscarriage in the first few weeks. THAT is the point to all of this. Even if technology is unavailable, it is not REQUIRED to have an induced miscarriage. So, the fetus is not entitled to it, and neither are women.. but that does not make the fetus autonomous, or the woman any less autonomous. The fetus is PRONE to the fact that it is inside of the woman. The woman might not even know it exists.. So if she goes a' climbing and takes a little fall of 15 feet, and her belly hits the rock wall, then bam its all over for your dear innocent little fetusmeister. Too bad so sad.



So a baby 30 seconds before breach is less autonomous than a baby that has been born? Again you obviously are too emotionally unbalanced to see te ridiculousness of your position. 




JD_2B said:


> If it HAS taken a breath, it cannot go back inside, because it is a fully autonomous human being and individual at that point.
> Reconcile that to yourself, and stop living in some kind of odd fantasy world where embryos can be adopted without the mother's body encasing it, as well.



Taking a breathe is what defines one as autonomous? Try again. 




JD_2B said:


> Dollface- even those who are not "innocent" can be murdered.
> 
> This is how I know your claim stems from a religious POV.



Sorry. You 'know' incorrectly. I am not really a religious person in the traditional sense. I believe there could be a higher power. But my sense of right and wrong is not derived from that. It does not take some religious perpsective to know that your position is morally wrong AND legally wrong.



JD_2B said:


> I didnt kill anything, lol.. I saw a blob of (growing) tissue that was ready to be removed from MY UTERUS. I paid some doctors to have it removed, and am thankful that I did. I actually sleep quite well, thanks.



That would depend entirely on the term of the pregnancy. Again how one can look at a baby as 'blob of growing tissue' minutes before both, have it born, then miraculously change ones view into having it be a full fledged human being suggest severe mental issues on your part.



JD_2B said:


> Fuck off if you want to be abusive and call women who choose when to have children murderers and assume that they should lose sleep over it or suddenly be counted as anything less than human beings. You are only saying those things because your words come from an emotional kneejerk reaction to abortion, and a longing to control and continue to abuse women as a whole.  You are an abuser. Merry Christmas, and may God have mercy on your soul.



And your words don't come from an emotional postion. Your's HAVE to come from an emotional postion because there isn't any objective or logical position that can call a baby something less than a human life minutes before it is born thus justifying abortion on a whim up to that point. I don't have a problem with woman and am not an abusive person. I have problem with SPECIFIC woman who want to call themselves a human life and not recognize that at some point in the pregnancy that 'thing' as you like to call is also a human life. If there really is a God It ain't me honey who is going to need to worry about his mercy. If you believe in god do you honestly think that he/she/it believes a baby does not achieve human life status sometime before it is born?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 24, 2009)

JD can't live with what she's done, so she has to lie to herself about what it was she did. It's that simple.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 24, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > And your words don't come from an emotional postion. Your's HAVE to come from an emotional postion because there isn't any objective or logical position that can call a *baby something less than a human life minutes before it is born thus justifying abortion on a whim up to that point*.
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 24, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



No, we are not talking about "potential human beings".  We're talking about human beings.  They're not suddenly, at some undefined later point, going to acquire human DNA.  They already have it at the moment of conception.  And by definition, they are already beings.

Being - 1 a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life
2 : the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality
3 : a living thing; especially : person

I am not even going to dignify that ignorant, "I was smoking in the boys' bathroom during biology class" argument about sperm somehow being equivalent to a separate organism by giving it an answer for the 243rd time since I joined this board.  Go look up one of the other multiple times I have covered it.  Better yet, take your uneducated self off to your local community college and enroll in a remedial biology class so you don't sound like such an utter and complete dumbfuck when you come on this board.  I would be embarrassed to be evidencing such a complete ignorance of basic, junior-high level knowledge in public.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 24, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1840311 said:
			
		

> JD can't live with what she's done, so she has to lie to herself about what it was she did. It's that simple.



The she needs to take her rationalization and self-justification up with her psychiatrist and stop dumping it on the rest of us.  This is not her group therapy session, and we're not in the business of boosting her self-esteem for having killed her baby.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 24, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 24, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Why is it important to you that the woman does not abort "on a whim" minutes before the fetus is born?
> 
> .


For the same reason it's important to most people that I'm not allowed to break into your house tonight and rape and kill you.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 24, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841045 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Why is it important to you that the woman does not abort "on a whim" minutes before the fetus is born?
> ...



How would that be any different from you doing that next week, or last week?

PS- Raping me, if I was pregnant, does not mean that you are raping the fetus, as well. Just another something for you to think about.


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 24, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



must we ?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 24, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> > It is not KILLING or MURDERING someone to remove them from their source of life support, or to deny them life support technology. People may have the right to life, but they do not have an entitlement to live.
> >
> > Tough shit. Deal with it.
> 
> ...



Not necessarily. Doctors botch abortions all the time. All that generally happens is that a vacuum is inserted into the uterus, and whatever is inside, is sucked out. A spoon can also be used, to be sure that the uterus is emptied. 
You have to also understand what an abortion is FOR. It is FOR ending a PREGNANCY. It does not matter if the woman is pregnant with an alien baby or a human one, it is HER pregnancy, and she has the right to end it whenever she chooses. 
By my TERMS, late term abortions should be legal, based on this. By my moral standards, no I would not choose to do that, at this time, I don't think. However, I have never been in a situation where I found out I was pregnant at seven months or 8 months along, and was forced to terminate the pregnancy as soon as I found out, like the majority of people (who abort) have to do. It's only different in these situations, because those people only find out FAR later than the ones who only found out in the very beginning that they were pregnant. 
I could care less about the term "viable". There have been fetuses as young as 20 weeks, "live" outside of the uterus. So fucking what?? So some sick fucking entitled parents decided that in spite of the fact that they basically had a miscarriage, they went ahead and put the damned thing through all kinds of hell and back, to live for what, a few fucking weeks, or months, maybe?? And that again has nothing to do with a RIGHT to life, and everything to some sort of crazed entitlement that someone feels their child has over another, which in fact, nobody really has. Nobody is entitled to live, period. Especially not INSIDE of an ACTUAL LIVING BODY that DOES NOT WANT IT TO BE THERE. 




> Removing it from life support would be through labor or c-section.  You have yet to uphold your insane belief in partial birth and late term abortions.
> Or have you stopped responding because you realize you have no case?
> Tough shit. Deal with it.



WTF?? Excuse me, but I seem to be the only one here actually giving any explanation that is thorough and concise, while all you have done is bitch and moan at me for it. 
And what CASE would that fucking be?? The one we WON??? 
If I don't want to be pregnant, even if it is late term, all I have to do to get it done legally is to go to a state that does it legally (like Kansas), or talk some Doctor into doing it for me, and make it out to be threatening my life (lots of pro choice doctors out there), or do what a teenage couple did, and pay someone 50 bucks to bash the shit out of my belly with a baseball bat a few times- and that is all AFTER I belly flop off of a cliff, or try to strip my own membranes early on in the pregnancy to make the water break, which would inevitably destroy the fetus if it is not ready to be delivered. 
What CASE do you have that any given person can NOT do any number of the things I just listed, ey? 

Yes, yes- AUTONOMY. It's a beautiful thing.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 24, 2009)

dilloduck said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841045 said:
> ...





Yuck.. lol


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 24, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Thats better JD----yuck it up a bit !  It's the holidays !


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 24, 2009)

HAHAHA 

I know, right.. Ugh. I am not crazy about being on here with all this insanity anyways. Santa's coming!! 

Norad tracks Santa:

Santa Tracker | Phoenix News | Arizona News | azfamily.com | AZ Family Extras

Muah! Nighty night all!! Merry Christmas!! =)


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 24, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> HAHAHA
> 
> I know, right.. Ugh. I am not crazy about being on here with all this insanity anyways. Santa's coming!!
> 
> ...



yes please----there must be crazies all over the world waiting for you -- save them !!


----------



## rdean (Dec 24, 2009)

The title of the thread is:

What should abortion laws be? 

There are three groups who need to be satisfied.

1.  the women

2.  the child

3.  the Christians

No one has covered all three bases.  Well, almost no one.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 24, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

rdean said:


> The title of the thread is:
> 
> What should abortion laws be?
> 
> ...




Err no the 3 groups would be

the women

the child

Right and Wrong

(ok so that may technically be 4 groups)

These christian political groups have tried to get into everyone else's business enough as it is, why should they be considered?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The same way that killing the child just before cutting the umbilical cord is no different than killing it just before it takes its first breath or just before it crowns or the week before birth. 

Just another something for _*you *_to think about.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> [
> It does not matter if the woman is pregnant with an alien baby or a human one



... Contrary to what Terral might have told you, women carrying alien babies are about as common as those human-dog hybrids we discussed earlier




> I have never been in a situation where I found out I was pregnant at seven months or 8 months along, and was forced to terminate the pregnancy as soon as I found out, like the majority of people (who abort) have to do.



What? You think the majority of women are forced to kill their babies as soon as the pregnancy becomes known? What fucking world do you live in?! 


> Nobody is entitled to live, period



We'll see if you're saying that when I have a gun to your head- or better yet after I kill your child and you're in the courtroom trying to explain why what I did was wrong.





> WTF?? Excuse me, but I seem to be the only one here actually giving any explanation that is thorough and concise,



seriously... what fucking world *DO* you live in?



> If I don't want to be pregnant, even if it is late term, all I have to do to get it done legally is to go to a state that does it legally (like Kansas), or talk some Doctor into doing it for me, and make it out to be threatening my life (lots of pro choice doctors out there), or do what a teenage couple did, and pay someone 50 bucks to bash the shit out of my belly with a baseball bat a few times- and that is all AFTER I belly flop off of a cliff, or try to strip my own membranes early on in the pregnancy to make the water break, which would inevitably destroy the fetus if it is not ready to be delivered.
> What CASE do you have that any given person can NOT do any number of the things I just listed, ey?


So once again you're back to arguing that it should be legal for me to rape you  because you can't always prevent me from doing so?


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841215 said:
			
		

> So once again you're back to arguing that it should be legal for me to rape you  because you can't always prevent me from doing so?



Not really comparable, abortion is a medical procedure which can be done safely and be sanitary or not. Rape, not so much.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841215 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's exactly the same, retard.

JD's argument:
It is impossible to stop _x_ in all instances,
therefore _x_ should not be illegal

I can plug anything I want into that equation. if JD supports objects to making any given thing illegal based on the above argument, then she must also support keeping legal anything else I plug into her argument.

That's how logic works. If anything can be plugged into the above argument that gives a result other than what the moron forwarding it desires, then that moron must recant the argument and find another way of arguing for its position.

Of course, given this thread's human-dog hybrids and not-alive babies that are alive cause they grow but aren't alive because JD wants an excuse to kill something that's not alive, it's clear that neither you or JD has any grasp on logic. Perhaps if you'd been in class instead of spending all those years aborting your babies in the bathroom or getting fucked by the professor or whatever the hell you were doing instead of learning, you'd not look like such idiots in this thread.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



. . . This response couldn't have been more surreal if it was signed "Salvadore Dali".

I'll give rep to anyone who can actually identify the point of this mess.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841236 said:
			
		

> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841215 said:
> ...



Close but not quite

It's impossible to stop X
When X is illegal it becomes unsanitary and unsafe for the consumer
When X is legal it reaches an acceptable level of safety
X should be legal.

Try plugging in rape for that.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> So it's better to kill children than to have them in the foster care system?  I also can't personally adopt all the children starving in the third world.  Should we go put a bullet in each of their heads, because death is better than an imperfect life?



I have a modest proposal...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841236 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's not what she argued, but let's examine your argument.

Performing liposuction in your garage with no medical training  while presenting yourself as a doctor cannot be stopped in all instances. If someone really wants to do it, they can.

If this is illegal, it remains unsafe, just as backalley abortions are illegal regardless of whether there is a leag alternative or not.

Therefore, backalley abortions and backalley liposuction should both be legal.




Care to try again?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > So it's better to kill children than to have them in the foster care system?  I also can't personally adopt all the children starving in the third world.  Should we go put a bullet in each of their heads, because death is better than an imperfect life?
> ...



Someone should have told you death merchants that he was KIDDING when he wrote that.  It was SATIRE.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841643 said:
			
		

> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841236 said:
> ...



Or perhaps we could just insert some reality into the argument.  It wasn't legalization that improved the safety of abortion.  It was the increased usage of antibiotics to combat the infections that were the number one cause of death in both abortions AND childbirth.  Since the vast majority of abortions prior to Roe were performed by licensed physicians and for a very long time abortion activists refused to allow any regulation or oversight of abortion clinics, resulting in some truly appalling sanitary conditions, there is simply no causal link between legalization and decrease of deaths.

Logic also requires that your premise be based in truth.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

I wonder whether FT support making it legal to give FT an unwanted lobotomy while sodomizing him, since doing it in my garage would be unsanitary but, we could do it in a cleanroom if it were legal.


----------



## rdean (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The title of the thread is:
> ...



The reality is that more than 70% of the US identifies itself as Christian.  They are the reason for laws against abortion.  For the discrimination against gays.  For the "war on Science".  For the fight to keep mysticism out of public schools.  
There is a lot you can lay directly at their feet.  Nothing will change until they are "appeased".  And that is just more reality.

Right and wrong has NOTHING to do with "Christian Morality".  People already wrote their laws and then claimed they come from their non existent god.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

rdean said:


> The reality is that more than 70% of the US identifies itself as Christian.  They are the reason for laws against abortion.



Yeah, because I don't exist and there are no other like me 


> For the discrimination against gays.  For the "war on Science"



Not the subject of the thread


> .  For the fight to keep mysticism out of public schools.



Actually,. atheists are mostly behind that


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




*So why stop at the moment of conception, why not assign a police officer to every man to prevent them from jerking off and killing "babies"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?*

.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



she explained this already....?

sperm is not a baby or fetus....it takes 2, to tango....the sperm and egg, combined, to create a new living *organism*....

Sperm alone, is squat....  an egg alone, is squat doodley as well....


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Give up, Care, CumisLiscious doesn't care about such facts.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Very interrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrresting.

Are you saying that  SPERMS are dead organisms?

Are you saying that the OVUM is a dead organism?

Are you saying that  eliminating 50% of the matter required to create a fetus is immaterial?

Or are you REALLY saying that the moment of conception was ARBITRARILY selected in order to punish females for having sex? 

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

^^Wow... that's the most blatant misrepresentation and willful stupidity I've seen in a long time.^^


----------



## rdean (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841885 said:
			
		

> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The reality is that more than 70% of the US identifies itself as Christian.  They are the reason for laws against abortion.
> ...



I get so tired of having to state the obvious.  If the religious didn't keep trying to push idiot mysticism onto unsuspecting American children, Atheists wouldn't have to fight to keep it out of public schools.  If the religious want to indoctrinate and contaminate their own children with crappy supernatural beliefs, fine, but they need to do it on their own time leave children not theirs, alone.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Their mysticism was in the schools in the first place. It was atheists who fought to get it out


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

rdean said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



This is not about your pathological hatred of Christians, so please take a pill and stop trying to shoehorn that into every discussion.

You can recite statistics until your little pinhead turns blue, and you STILL don't get to argue against the points you WISH people were making, instead of the ones they ARE making.  If we're arguing that biology insists that a fetus is alive, then you don't get to argue against "God will smite you down for abortion!"  Sorry, but that's how it goes when you converse with humans instead of the voices in your head.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You know what I do when ill-mannered children refuse to take "No" for an answer and scream and kick their feet?  I ignore them.

You sound like a fool, and now you sound like a puerile fool.  I won't contribute to either.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Hey, guys, which post was it where I kindly and patiently deigned to explain cells, tissues, organs, and organisms to JD the Dog Girl?  Maybe someone could just link that for this twit.

Or maybe he could just go over to JD's for an orgy with her Dobermans and stop bothering us altogether.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



did you FAIL biology in high school???  is an unfertilized egg an organism?  is sperm an organism?

I'd back out of this conversation if I were you....until you pick up a book or two.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I never said it wasn't.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841643 said:
			
		

> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841236 said:
> ...



Wow you're picky.

I thought you'd be smart enough to figure it out but

When things are legalized they can be held to safety standards they cannot be held to when they are illegal. See alcohol during prohibition vs after. That should've been given.

So when liposuction is illegal all you get are garage vacuum jobs whereas when it's legal they are extremely rare.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except, of course, that the same abortion advocates who trumpeted the need for legalized abortion to protect the safety of women ALSO prevented abortion clinics from being held to any sort of safety standards for decades.

House OKs stricter abortion-clinic standards. | Goliath Business News

SESSION NOTEBOOK: Bill applies state safety standards to abortion clinics | Jacksonville.com

State Politics & Policy | Kansas House Committee Approves Abortion Clinic Safety Standard Bill - Kaisernetwork.org

Just to list a few reported instances.

What really amazes me after all this blather for decades about "protecting women", "back alley abortions", blah de fucking blah, what are they complaining about when they're required to actually protect their clients as much as your average oral surgeon would?  "It would cost too much.  You're trying to put us out of business by raising costs."  As if that ever bothered the same people when imposing OSHA and ADA standards on other businesses.  Are you telling us that business and money are more important than the lives and health of women?  Hypocrites.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 25, 2009)

I said can be not will be your mileage may vary (didn't know that though, thanks for the info).


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Father Time said:


> So when liposuction is illegal all you get are garage vacuum jobs whereas when it's legal they are extremely rare.


Far as I know, there's no law against using yoga to implant your head in your anal cavity, yet you and JD are the only ones doing it in this thread.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

Care4all said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




In biology, an organism* is any living system *


According to *Harvard and Stanford Universities sperms are organisms*

*
"Slender organisms such as sperms,* worms, snakes, and eels propel themselves through a fluid using undulatory waves of flexure that propagate along their body (1).



I'd back out of this conversation if I were you....until you pick up a book or two.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

A sperm is not an organism. Is a single *cell* of a larger organism - a *germ cell*, to be exact.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842495 said:
			
		

> A sperm is not an organism. Is a single *cell* of a larger organism - a *germ cell*, to be exact.



So are amoebas. They are also organisms.

,


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

an amoeba is a cell of a larger organism? And here I thought the were their own entities.

Do share your source.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842524 said:
			
		

> an amoeba is a cell of a larger organism? And here I thought the were their own entities.
> 
> Do share your source.



The spermatozoa has unique characteristics is alive and constitutes an integral part of the fetus. Just like the fetus has the POTENTIAL to create a human being so does the spermatozoa. 

Any guy caught jerking off must be arrested for performing an abortion without a license. 

We need to protect the babies.

.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 25, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842524 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How can you be so purposely stupid? Doesn't it hurt? It sure hurts to read it.

The sperm and ovum cease to be as distinct entities when they combine to form a new human organism. neither is a human organism- they are simply human germ cells. A fetus is a distinct living organism that is genetically human- a human being by definition.

This has been explained countless times and either you're purposely being retarded or you're simply not smart enough to caerry on a meaningful and honest discussion.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 25, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842524 said:
> ...



.......or you have an agenda which blinds you to the fact that the spermatozoa and the ovum :














*Humans reproduce sexually, with both parents contributing half of the genetic makeup of their offspring via sex cells or gametes*



*Any guy caught jerking off must be arrested for performing an abortion without a license.*

*.Blow Jobs must criminalized. Babies are being killed in the process.*


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

Why are you people always so dishonest?


> Humans reproduce sexually, with both parents contributing half of the genetic makeup of their offspring via sex cells or gametes



Exactly- cells of the parents' bodies, not organisms unto themselves.

You just refuted yourself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



You didn't pick up a book, you numbfuck.  You picked up a quote and took it out of context, and decided that that trumped all biological and medical science on the subject.

I don't know where you got the vague and simplistic definition of "organism" as "a living system" (I'm guessing Wikipedia, since Internet tweekos always think that's the be-all and end-all of knowledge), but you're mistaken on all counts here.  This is what an organism is:

1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

The sperm cell is not an organism in the correct sense of the word, ie. in the way that a human or a dog or even a rosebush is.  It is a specialized cell which is part of a larger organism, the male animal which produced it.  Its purpose is to join with another specialized cell which is part of another organism, the female animal of the same species, and form a separate and distinct organism, the embryo of that same species.  Neither the sperm nor the egg themselves are distinct organisms.  This is what everyone has been trying to tell you here, while you have been stubbornly and proudly clinging to your ignorance, and making yourself a public fool while proclaiming yourself the wisest of all.  Congratulations.  You're now almost as big a laughingstock as JD.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842495 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amoebas aren't germ cells.  They are single-cell organisms, but that doesn't mean that EVERY single cell in existence is an organism, fool.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842524 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, shitforbrains, ALL cells in a body are alive (until they die) and have unique characteristics.  You can say that about my skin cells, or the cells of my heart muscles, but that doesn't make THEM individual organisms, either.  Second of all, the fetus does not have the "potential to create a human being".  He IS the human being created already.



Contumacious said:


> Any guy caught jerking off must be arrested for performing an abortion without a license.
> 
> We need to protect the babies.
> 
> .



You should be arrested any time you have sex with a woman for endangering the gene pool.  Who knows but that willful, proud imbecility like yours (Hey, look, everyone, I know fuck-all about biology, and I'm PROUD of it!  I  want to convince everyone ELSE to know as little about how their bodies work as I do!) might be hereditary?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Biology-Dummies-Donna-Rae-Siegfried/dp/0764553267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261854770&sr=8-1#noop]Amazon.com: Biology for Dummies (9780764553264): Donna Rae Siegfried: Books[/ame]

Buy it, read it, learn it.  Until then, you don't deserve to be allowed to converse with adults who earned their high school graduations.  Begone, fool.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 26, 2009)

In Canada we have NO abortion laws. We don't need one because in Canada women can make up their own mind.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

Hey... I resent the implication that not graduating high school renders one unqualified for participation in this discussion. 

(GEDs count, too, right?)


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 26, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Its purpose is to join with another specialized cell which is part of another organism, the female animal of the same species, and form a separate and distinct organism, the embryo of that same species.  Neither the sperm nor the egg themselves are distinct organisms. .



In that case , the fetus is not an organism either. 

If the the spermatozoa and the ovum are not aborted they will become a fetus. If the fetus is not aborted it will become a human being. So the spermatozoa, the ovum and fetus are cells in transition.

But you can not arbitrarily  choose a link in the transition in order to persecute females. You can not disregard biology and proclaim that the genetic material provided by the gametes is unimportant. 

Every time a woman has a menstrual cycle an ovum was prevented from becoming a "baby" Every time a guy masturbates or ejaculates into a woman' mouth and/or rectum a "baby" was aborted. 

So, if "babies" are REALLY the concern, let's get serious and  prosecute those criminals.

.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Its purpose is to join with another specialized cell which is part of another organism, the female animal of the same species, and form a separate and distinct organism, the embryo of that same species.  Neither the sperm nor the egg themselves are distinct organisms. .
> ...



Honest question: Are you legally retarded?


> If the the spermatozoa and the ovum are not aborted they will become a fetus. If the fetus is not aborted it will become a human being. So the spermatozoa, the ovum and fetus are cells in transition.



Just reading such stupidity is painful. 



> A *fetus* (sometimes spelled *foetus* or *ftus*) is a stage in the development of viviparous organisms. This stage lies between the embryonic stage and birth.



The only difference between a fetus and a child no longer a fetus is location. It's like the difference between magma and lava.


> But you can not arbitrarily  choose a link in the transition



Like arbitrarily choosing crowing, the exiting of the last toe, first breath, or the cutting of the umbilical cord? 


> You can not disregard biology



I can't articulate how stupid you are... if there's a word in the English language to describe you and JD, I don't know it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843377 said:
			
		

> Hey... I resent the implication that not graduating high school renders one unqualified for participation in this discussion.
> 
> (GEDs count, too, right?)



Of course.  And the REAL point is, you appear to have earned whatever you got by actually LEARNING THE INFORMATION.  I have no patience with all the "social promotion" people wandering around slack-jawed these days.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 26, 2009)

Fetal tissue is parasitic. If a women want to rid her body of the parasite that is HER right. It's legal so I laugh at you holier than thou, religious, wack-jobs who want your beliefs imposed on others - you are NAZIS.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

Yukon said:


> I laugh at you holier than thou, religious, wack-jobs who want your beliefs imposed on others






Who the fuck are you even talking at?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843583 said:
			
		

> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > I laugh at you holier than thou, religious, wack-jobs who want your beliefs imposed on others
> ...



Um, that's Yukon.  What makes you so sure he's talking to anyone at all?  It isn't as though reality is any sort of priority in his life.


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843401 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Yep.




> Just reading such stupidity is painful.



And the truth shall set you free.





> The only difference between a fetus and a child no longer a fetus is location. It's like the difference between magma and lava.



Honest question: Are you legally retarded?





> I can't articulate how stupid you are... if there's a word in the English language to describe you and JD, I don't know it.



Astute, genius, discerner, deductive reasoner


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843401 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



'nough said.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 26, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> That's very noble of you.
> 
> Let me ask , how much money did you contribute to Innocence Project in 2009?
> 
> ...



I understand you're not so sublte attempt to call me a hypocrit when I tell you I haven't donated anything to that organization. I'm not sure what exonerating innocent people has to do with abortion. Explain.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842358 said:
			
		

> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > So when liposuction is illegal all you get are garage vacuum jobs whereas when it's legal they are extremely rare.
> ...



It's not even my damn argument it's hers, not my fault you can't grasp it (hint there was a clause about being safe when legal which doesn't apply to medial procedures done by untrained individuals without the proper equipment).


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

And so we should legalize involuntary lobotomies and harvesting organs from living persons, since we can do it in  a cleanroom if it's legal?

Yours is a fool's argument.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843875 said:
			
		

> And so we should legalize involuntary lobotomies and harvesting organs from living persons, since we can do it in  a cleanroom if it's legal?
> 
> Yours is a fool's argument.



IT'S NOT MY DAMN ARGUMENT! It was JD's I was just correcting you.

Anyway lobotomies are always perilious and yes I believe you should have a right to sell your own organs, not for that reason though.

EDIT: Well fuck me I misread JD's post, you're on your own now JD. You were right that was her argument (I think).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1843875 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Always tread lightly when defending a woman who thinks dogs and humans can interbreed.


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2009)

Once again, I go through the posts and not a single Conservative has any solution other than, "Make abortion illegal".  Nothing to help the mother. Nothing to help the child.

It's like they are saying, "get it born and then screw it, it's not MY problem.  I did MY job by making it illegal.  I'm though.  Next!"


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 26, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > That's very noble of you.
> ...



Well, I understand that most of the defendants are Negroes. Who wants to save the lives of Negroes?

Not you.

.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Once again, I go through the posts and not a single Conservative has any solution other than, "Make abortion illegal".  Nothing to help the mother. Nothing to help the child.
> 
> It's like they are saying, "get it born and then screw it, it's not MY problem.  I did MY job by making it illegal.  I'm though.  Next!"



Once again, you go through the posts and only see what you want to see.  Why do you even bother with an interactive medium when you only interact with your own paranoia and bigotry?  You could do that offline and save a lot of board space.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842524 said:
> ...




The fetus is not a distinct entity. To be distinct, or a human "being", or an organism whatsoever, one must be capable of adapting to different environments, which zygotes cannot do. HUMANS can survive in air, and cannot survive in an perpetual underwater state. Zygotes can ONLY survive in the uterus. Thus, a zygote is NOT THE SAME THING as a human being because it CANNOT hold its breath, and breathe air. 

A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater. 

Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so. 

And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either. They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD. There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live. 

What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 26, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



uh oh---here we go again


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> The fetus is not a distinct entity.



This has been explained to you time and again. If you are unable or unwilling to learn, stop wasting our time.


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I go through the posts and not a single Conservative has any solution other than, "Make abortion illegal".  Nothing to help the mother. Nothing to help the child.
> ...



I'm sure you believe what you say, too bad you couldn't link any corroborating evidence.

I have seen Democrats with solutions, even Obama.  Solutions other than abortion.  

While Obama supports a woman's right to choose, he has stated many times that he is against abortion, but until women have a viable alternative, then he has to support women's rights.  

Republicans simply don't care about consequences.  They would rather see their own children die than to reconsider their ideology.  We know that with the HPV Virus:

HPV is an increasingly common sexually transmitted disease and one that scientists say is linked to 70% of all cases of cervical cancer.

An STD Vaccine For All Girls? - TIME

if you are good folks who raise your daughter to be chaste and pure until she reaches her marriage bed, she won't need this." 

------------

They would rather see their kids die.  Hey, if they are raised "right", they won't have sex.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 26, 2009)

> Republicans simply don't care about consequences. They would rather see their own children die than to reconsider their ideology


Take your partisan hackery elsewhere.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 26, 2009)

^ Has nothing to do with this subject.  Those groups you are referring to are nut jobs, the few but the loud and are talking about immunization policy not abortion.  The general populous does not feel this way.  

  Once again, I put fourth an option in the very first post &#8211; allow abortions up to the end of the first trimester.  That is one possible solution.  If you believe that there is a better solution then put it forward AND STATE YOU&#8217;RE REASONING.  If you believe there is error in what I suggested then POINT IT OUT AND STATE YOUR REASONING.  Since you have failed to do anything of the sort I can only surmise that you have no idea why you support your pov nor truly have you even put forward what you truly believe in.  If all you have is rhetoric then leave.  If you have some input, we have been waiting.

oops, that was at rdean, you posted while I was typing pro


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844399 said:
			
		

> > Republicans simply don't care about consequences. They would rather see their own children die than to reconsider their ideology
> 
> 
> Take your partisan hackery elsewhere.



You forgot the "sputtering", the "outrage" and the "dirty words".

I put up links.  

Abstinence only doesn't work.

Rejecting vaccines for STD's don't work.

And believe me, abortion is most definitely related to abstinence and STD's.  You can see the connection, right?


----------



## rdean (Dec 26, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> ^ Has nothing to do with this subject.  Those groups you are referring to are nut jobs, the few but the loud and are talking about immunization policy not abortion.  The general populous does not feel this way.
> 
> Once again, I put fourth an option in the very first post  allow abortions up to the end of the first trimester.  That is one possible solution.  If you believe that there is a better solution then put it forward AND STATE YOURE REASONING.  If you believe there is error in what I suggested then POINT IT OUT AND STATE YOUR REASONING.  Since you have failed to do anything of the sort I can only surmise that you have no idea why you support your pov nor truly have you even put forward what you truly believe in.  If all you have is rhetoric then leave.  If you have some input, we have been waiting.
> 
> oops, that was at rdean, you posted while I was typing pro



Not sure I understand.  What I do understand is that for the right, abortion is not an option at any time.  Not even the morning after pill.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 26, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



    I have already pointed out that the women are life support systems is a failing defense for late and partial birth abortions, which you have stated you support.    As a viable fetus (not the 20 week fetus you tried to straw man but a fully functioning 8 or 9 month old fetus) can be removed with a c-section and live completely disconnected with few complications.  

    We have also covered the distinct organism argument earlier.  A fetus IS a distinct organism by ANY definition.  The debate is over when it receives protection.  A few believe at the moment it is created, some like me and pre believe that brain development is the defining factor and it seems you believe that breath is what defines its rights.  What I fail to understand and what you have put no points against is WHY breath is this defining factor.  There is no difference between a child moments before the first breath and moments after.  YOU CANNOT STICK IT BACK IN as you have said earlier at any point after birthing has starts and I cannot see the reasoning that a fetuss ability to survive IN the womb has any bearing on abortion.  I at least understand the viability argument, though I do not agree.  



> What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..



That is a piss poor example as it would require you to permanently loose a part of your body and is not part of the natural process of child birth.  A better example would be your parents.  They were likely born before Infant formula existed.  Do you, then, feel that it would be perfectly acceptable for a mother to withhold her breast milk and allow her newborn to starve to death since, after all, breast milk IS part of the mothers body and the child has no right to it.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 26, 2009)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion, and then continued to do nothing but berate and belittle everyone with a different opinion, who back their conclusions up with fact. Cecile is much the same way, as far as ad hominems go, but at least has some (albeit biased and subjective) evidence for her opinions. I think she is narrow minded, but Proletarian is absolutely closed off to discussion on the matter, and his posts are a total waste of breath, and energy for all involved to even entertain. Cecile is almost there.. she just has a lot of pent up hate and anger over it. He supports abortion to 12 weeks gestation, but will call a woman a baby killer if they don't regret it, even if done in his own subjective time frame. 
Cecile seems to be much the same way, as well... 

In spite of what the two claim to "support", they don't act like they support it at all. LMAO!! Whats new.. That's the anti abortion agenda for ya.  Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed, and generally most people like this get their emotional knee jerk reactions from a bunch of pictures of fetal porn posted by websites like priests for life and abort73, operation rescue, etc.. Priests for life has circulated pictures of an anti abortion protester holding an "aborted fetus", which was said to be like 3 months gestated, when in actuality, based on it's size, and later confirmed, it was a LATE term stillborn fetus, not even an aborted one in the first place. 

Then there are the pictures out there of actual aborted fetuses and embryos, that are about the size of a nickel, and the photographer uses a special camera to zoom in on the body parts, showing the facial features that look something like an alien, but are human enough in structure that they cause an emotional reaction in anyone who would look at them. 
Part of science is separating personal feelings for actual fact, and the reason these websites post so many photos is because they know that it will cause people to let their emotions take over and not use as much logic as a result. It is very much a form of manipulation and trickery. If they did not list those pictures, and only listed their abortion "facts" the way they do, people would not be so quick to hate other people over it. It is really really a big problem, this whole anti abortion misguidance system.


----------



## xsited1 (Dec 26, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> What should abortion laws be?



I give my money to Planned Parenthood under one condition:

Report: Planned Parenthood Apologizes for Encouraging Donation Aimed at Aborting Black Babies - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
> ...



I understand that entirely- but the fact that they CAN be removed does not mean that they SHOULD be removed. Remember again.. A right to live is not an entitlement to. 
Also, an 8 or 9 month fetus can also "die" in the uterus, or be born at full term, as a stillbirth. So I have to say that this is not necessarily a fully functioning organism. I do agree that it would be pretty dumb and cold to abort something that late in the game, but I don't hate on people for doing it. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. I brought up the 20 week thing, because I am sick of hearing about "viability", and want to hammer that point home. You are not ONLY against 8 and 9 month abortions, but are against much earlier abortions as well, as you have said. I want to help cover those seemingly gray areas for you, as much as you need. Clearly, discussing it and asking for links and facts, you WANT us to give you truths that you are not getting from your anti abortion sites or friends or groups. We are happy to educate you, here.  =)

Should We Get Genetic Counseling?

Memorializing Your Infant after Miscarriage or Stillbirth

Stillbirth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




> We have also covered the distinct organism argument earlier.  A fetus IS a distinct organism by ANY definition.  The debate is over when it receives protection.  A few believe at the moment it is created, some like me and pre believe that brain development is the defining factor and it seems you believe that breath is what defines its rights.  What I fail to understand and what you have put no points against is WHY breath is this defining factor.  There is no difference between a child moments before the first breath and moments after.  YOU CANNOT STICK IT BACK IN as you have said earlier at any point after birthing has starts and I cannot see the reasoning that a fetuss ability to survive IN the womb has any bearing on abortion.  I at least understand the viability argument, though I do not agree.



I have put facts forward as to why the breath is a factor. Once it fucking breathes (lather, rinse repeat) it CANT go BACK INSIDE OF THE WOMAN. Hence, it is self supporting, self sustaining, alive, a LIFE, and individual, an entity, a human being. How many times do I have to repeat this? The air in the fetus' blood is NOT it's own air. It is the mother's air, that is a SHARED resource, and if she LOSES her ability to breathe, then the fetus stops growing. Hence, a fetus is NOT an individual, it is not self supporting, it is not an entity in and of itself, it is not a LIFE, or a being. I have only said this about a thousand times in this thread. Ignore it if you want, but do not claim that this is not factual information or that I am not backing my claims up. 



> > What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..
> 
> 
> That is a piss poor example as it would require you to permanently loose a part of your body and is not part of the natural process of child birth.  A better example would be your parents.  They were likely born before Infant formula existed.  Do you, then, feel that it would be perfectly acceptable for a mother to withhold her breast milk and allow her newborn to starve to death since, after all, breast milk IS part of the mothers body and the child has no right to it.


[/QUOTE]

A newborn would not HAVE to starve to death, just because the mother chose not to breastfeed, or in many cases, could not breastfeed. This is a social expectation, not an entitlement or a requirement on the mother's part, for a born baby to survive, even if formula did not exist. In many societies, and even in the US, there are women available who are more than happy to continue pumping their own breasts, long after their own babies have been weaned, or breastfeeding another person's baby if needed. 
It DOES take a village. Always has, always will. The child does NOT have a "right" to the breast, or any other portion of someone else's body. To say otherwise is completely lacking respect for women, and expecting women to lose all of their own personal respect. 
A child can also be adopted by a family who is pregnant, or breastfeeding and that woman can breastfeed the adopted baby. Do you deny any of these facts??
You have to accept that the rights to a body are individual, and autonomous. Everyone has the right to make their OWN decisions as to who does what with their body parts and fluids. Nobody, not even their offspring, is entitled to any piece of that pie.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,



Yes, unlike you, I don't don't chave to change my argument every time someone points out that a dog





> can't get a woman pregnant.
> 
> and then continued to do nothing but berate and belittle everyone with a different opinion, who back their conclusions up with fact. Cecile is much the same way, as far as ad hominems go, but at least has some (albeit biased and subjective) evidence for her opinions. I think she is narrow minded, but Proletarian is absolutely closed off to discussion on the matter,







			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1822994 said:
			
		

> (F)inding information on fetal brain development has been difficult and I remain open to evidence indicating a different timeline.



When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.





> Both seem to be victims of the anti abortion haters of america, who do nothing but cause people to believe things that are not fact based, or scientific/ peer reviewed,



says the woman who thinks her dog can get her pregnant and dead babies grow


----------



## rdean (Dec 27, 2009)

xsited1 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > What should abortion laws be?
> ...



I'm going to assume that if it comes from Fox news it's anti Obama.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844499 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Don't waste your time on Proletarian or Cecile. Prolet has posted all of ONE opinion,
> ...



This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show. 

Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

Damn, you're stupid... 

Canidae and Hominidae cannot interbreed and never were capable of interbreeding. They are of different classes (that's a level on the phylogenetic tree) and the common ancestor was neither canidae nor hominidae.

This is not middle school and I don't get paid to tech you elementary biology or evolution. Since you've shown repeatedly that you have no idea what you're talking about, all further posts you make will be disregarded as spam.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1842638 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let me get this straight.  To be an organism, and a distinct entity, one must be able to adapt to different environments.  And yet you then state that humans can survive in air, and not underwater.  Wouldn't that mean, by your logic, that their inability to adapt to water means they aren't organisms?  Does the fact that fish can only survive in water and not on land make THEM not oganisms?

I'm afraid I'm just not seeing the logic behind "Being able to survive only in the environment for which you are designed means you are not an organism".

Oh, and who told you that all humans, by definition, must respirate in a certain way?  Humans AFTER A CERTAIN POINT IN DEVELOPMENT respirate in that way.  Before that point, they're designed to perform their respiration via the umbilical cord.  This is like saying that a fetus isn't human because it doesn't look like an adult human.  You're going to penalize him for being at one stage of life instead of another?



JD_2B said:


> A person on a ventilator is DIFFERENT- so don't try to argue semantics on this one. A person on a ventilator CAN have their nose and mouth sealed off for a few seconds, and immersed in water, thereby doing the same thing as a conscious person would do if they held their breath and went underwater.



I don't think anyone needs to talk about ventilators.  The simple, inescapable fact is that not being an adult does not mean the fetus isn't human.  It just means he's not an adult.  He is what all humans are AT THAT STAGE OF LIFE.  You can no more deny the humanity of a fetus based on his lack of adult development than you can deny the humanity of an infant because he hasn't learned adult bladder control.



JD_2B said:


> Women are life support systems, at least loosely defined, and even if the embryo was carefully removed, it would NOT be capable of surviving the environment that all human beings CAN survive without the aide of a parent encasing them, to do so.



Um, no, ALL human beings CANNOT survive that environment.  Fetuses can't.  And you don't get to impose your arbitrary standard of "To be human, you must live in THIS environment THIS way" on nature and science.  Show me somewhere that science makes that distinction, or give it up.



JD_2B said:


> And furthermore- DEAD people are no longer human "beings" either.



Who said they were?



JD_2B said:


> They are human corpses, once they die. Yes they have human DNA, but if they cease from being capable of functioning, or breathing on their own, or having a blood pressure (a pulse) without support, they are, by all accounts DEAD.



You're listing us signs by which we know that someone is dead, not the actual definition of "dead".  A fetus does not meet the actual criteria for "dead".



JD_2B said:


> There is no BEING left in them. No sense in keeping them alive based on some technicality. The right to die is just as important as the right to life.. and the right to life should never be construed as an entitlement to live.



I still haven't figured out what you think the right to live is if not an entitlement to live.  "You have the right to life, but that doesn't mean you actually get to live!"  I think I'm not alone in saying, "What the fuck?!"



JD_2B said:


> What happens if someone's born kid/ or fetus needs an organ or tissue? Do you think that the parents should be forced to give up their own bodily autonomy to keep that kid alive, based on some ridiculous nonsensical entitlement to the working parts of another person's body, that you associate with the right to life?? No way!! I can't explain autonomy in a way that is any more simplistic for you..



Well, I'm sure none of us expect YOU to give enough of a rat's ass about your kids to inconvenience yourself by donating a kidney, or even a pint of blood.  I believe I have said before that I pity your child if he ever exceeds the limit where Mommy thinks he's convenient to her life, based on what happened to the last one who got in her way.  Most of us, however, would not need to be "forced" to help our children.

Aside from marveling at your pathological hatred of your femaleness, your reproductive system, and your own offspring, I honestly can't see any other point to this paragraph . . . not that discernible points are a requirement with you.


----------



## Care4all (Dec 27, 2009)

When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?


----------



## Yukon (Dec 27, 2009)

ABORTION is legal, get over it.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 27, 2009)

Care4all said:


> When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?



Because the law is not required to be consistent or sensical.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

Care4all said:


> When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?



That doesn't change the fact that Bald Eagles often push their eggs or born birds out of the nest prematurely. What are you going to do? Imprison a bird? Also- Humans are not going to be on any endangered species any time soon, so the analogy (aside from the bird's decision making being completely autonomous) is completely moot. 

Also, it should be noted that it was not only illegal to damage the eggs, but to touch them at all, was considered molesting. The only thing you can touch of a protected species is their fecal matter, or any feathers that have been molted/ skin shedded, etc. The EPA makes certain exceptions in good faith, like if you pick up a Gopher Tortoise, who is crossing the road, and ensure that it gets dropped off on the side of the road it was headed in- they dont care if you do that. A Segura Cactus (the kind that grows "arms", in Arizona) is also protected. You can't even dig one up and replant it without getting special permissions first. 

Anyhoo...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > When the Bald eagle was on the endangered species list, it was ALSO ILLEGAL to kill or to damage any of the Bald eagle's fertilized eggs....the crime and punishment were EQUAL...why is that JD?
> ...



So you should be allowed to kill babies becausethis

Florida Woman Kills Son, Self at Gun Range - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com


> ? A Segura Cactus (the kind that grows "arms", in Arizona) is also protected. You can't even dig one up and replant it without getting special permissions first.


WTF is a Seguara? I never heard of such a thing?

I like saguaro, though.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844592 said:
			
		

> Damn, you're stupid...
> 
> Canidae and Hominidae cannot interbreed and never were capable of interbreeding. They are of different classes (that's a level on the phylogenetic tree) and the common ancestor was neither canidae nor hominidae.
> 
> This is not middle school and I don't get paid to tech you elementary biology or evolution. Since you've shown repeatedly that you have no idea what you're talking about, all further posts you make will be disregarded as spam.



The common ancestor was primates. Read the article. There is also evidence that suggests that humans and wolves procreated about 10,000- 14,000 years ago, which is thought to be how dogs were created in the first place. The only reason we don't know more than we do is because we lack sufficient technology to read the genetic sequences, in dogs and humans, because dogs have been reproduced so specifically within their breeds, that they have very breed specific genetics, and so each breed takes a lot of individual attention to check out their genomes. 

PS- Don't respond to my posts if you dont agree and are just going to call me an idiot or something. My whole point to all that "dog- human breeding" comment was more of an illustration than anything. If a dog- human was inside of a person, would it then be a human being with rights?? Obviously that is beside the point, but I want to show how some people think that certain people have special rights over others. In your case, a fetus seems to have rights over a woman.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1845680 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...




No- Killing babies is murder. Abortion is not. Stop making moot analogies.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> No- Killing babies is murder. Abortion is not. Stop making moot analogies.



Killing a German in Germany in 1942 was murder, killing a Jew was not.

All are homicide by definition. Stop playing pathetic word games- you're not smart or literate enough to play linguistic mindfuck with me.


----------



## rdean (Dec 27, 2009)

Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal".  What happens to the kids?  The mother?


----------



## K9Buck (Dec 27, 2009)

I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger.  I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum.  But it is what I believe.  Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience.  In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.  

Now I'll duck for cover.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 27, 2009)

K9Buck said:


> I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger.  I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum.  But it is what I believe.  Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience.  In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.
> 
> Now I'll duck for cover.



You're such a martyr


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

rdean said:


> Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal".  What happens to the kids?  The mother?




You have a better solution than euthanasia? why should anyone have to support some old person or sick child when they could be at the club?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> > I agree that a 9 month gestated fetus should be birthed. I personally cannot see myself ever aborting at this stage. However, the argument you have here is emotional, not one based on anything factual. See, you can't adopt a fetus while it is still in it's mothers uterus, without taking her with it. I would like to see that happen. LMAO!!
> > And, it is not RIGHT to force a woman to have a C-section or induce a delivery, just because you want her to have a live birth.
> >
> > Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus.
> ...



Well, my son was born three days late, and his lung collapsed, and he DID need medical attention.
Whats your point?



> Conceivably, you could take a child several months early and still have it come to term in medical care without the mother.  Your position is rather than force a woman to undergo a simple procedure or suffer through a day of live birth we should force a child to be cut into small pieces!  Your attacks and language are not covering for the straw man.  You still are lacking an argument for personal responsibility.



Only conceivably. Thats a potential argument. 
Potentially, a Freshman in College will become a doctor, but we don't give him rights to perform surgery, now do we??
And the medical care is a social responsibility, not an entitlement. You can't keep everyone on life support forever, just because you are scared that they will "die". 
Also, you are using emotionally misguided, and misguiding rhetoric, by even calling it a child. The scientifically accurate term is "fetus". I have also not attacked you at all.. Quite the opposite, really. 
Also, what personal responsibility do you refer to? Abortions are expensive- costing from 400 dollars to 800 dollars just to have it done in the first few months. The woman almost ALWAYS pays for that entirely out of pocket. How is that not taking responsibility? Pregnancies can end in any number of ways. Taking responsibility for how it ends in one way, over another, is a moot point. 



> > I understand that, and while I agree that those are immoral, I will not say that they should be illegal. There are a lot of things that are immoral that should not be illegal.
> > If a woman does not want something inside of her, she should not be under some morally based legal obligation (based on the average emotional person thinking that removing it using force is wrong or immoral) to keep it there.
> 
> 
> Youre damn right it should be illegal and there is not a SINGLE GOD DAMN ARGUMENT OUT THERE THAT RESONABLE SUPPORTS PARTAL BIRTH ABORTIONS AS THEY ARE ACCOMPLISHED DURING THE BIRTHING PROSESS.  Got that.  It is coming out already and in some cases IS out.  That is the insane argument you are making here.  If that is your true belief, then please late abort yourself



The term "Partial birth abortion" is a myth. It is NOT partially born, whatsoever. You have obviously been duped by anti abortion propaganda. Also, the Supreme Court banned "Intact Dilation and Extraction" for the most part, in Gonzales v Carhart. Unfortunately, they called it the "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act", which is misleading as to what actually happens during this procedure. The feet and body come out up to the neck, and then a sharp instrument is shoved into the base of the skull. The head itself is not removed, prior to the brains being suctioned out, which causes the head to become small enough to pull out entirely. In a "birth", the Cervix must be dilated fully, except in cases of a C-section. 
Often, the later on a woman is in the pregnancy, the more of a chance there is that she is already dilating between 1 and 3 centimeters. 

Cervical dilation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If a fetus has a hydrocephalus, then it will almost surely die or be severely disabled. For some parents, especially low income ones, or ones who are disabled themselves, there is no point in delivering this fetus, either vaginally or by C-section. 

Hydrocephalus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Sorry, the nasty side of me comes out when you condone partial birth abortions as they are obviously murder.  It is the single largest travesty about the abortion issue.



No, murder is a legal term. Abortion is legal. In some cases, IDE (intact dilation and extraction) is legal. You are using terminology that emotionally misguides the reader, as a method of misinforming them of what actually happens during the abortion.
I have also said- I personally would probably not have a late term abortion of any kind. I can say that with ease, though, because I am not disabled, and my family has no genetic issues that can (potentially) cause massive complications during pregnancy or after birth. The fact that I do not call the sometimes disabled parents of fetuses who are facing taking care of a child with massive disabilities, a seemingly impossible task, MURDERERS just because they need the abortion for medical, physical, or even merciful emotional or sociological reasons, is OKAY. This kind of procedure is VERY rare, and only called for in the most dire of conditions. 
Most people would not terminate a pregnancy for no fucking reason at all, at that stage, Cecile. Stop being so absurd. 





> I pointed out in my earlier post that what you say is untrue.  We have active brain activity and can reasonable determine what said activity indicates.  Since you are lazy and incompetent at actual sourcing
> Fetal Psychology
> At 32 weeks, it drowses 90 to 95% of the day. Some of these hours are spent in deep sleep, some in REM sleep, and some in an indeterminate state, a product of the fetus' immature brain that is different from sleep in a baby, child, or adult. During REM sleep, the fetus' eyes move back and forth just as an adult's eyes do, and many researchers believe that it is dreaming. DiPietro speculates that fetuses dream about what they know - the sensations they feel in the womb.



Duly noted- We do have brain activity. I have never contested that. Mice dream too..  at least according to these neurological sleep studies. WE ALL have working brains and memories. That is not an indicator of being sentient, or achieving personhood, or having a right to life, when the fetus is within an actual living person. Also, this link came from a bible-beater website, and I have no doubt that it is chock full of misinformation designed to misguide people into caring too much for a fetus over the mother. The fetus is STILL subjected to having a breathing, living woman encasing it, to remain a growing organism. (lather rinse, repeat again and again)
No amount of fetal sentience, either real or imagined, will ever change that. 


http://graphoniac.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/fetal-brain-activity-28-weeks-pregnant/


> Fetal Brain Activity  28 Weeks Pregnant « Graphoniac
> 
> *Week 28 of Pregnancy: Fetal Brain Activity*
> Are you dreaming about your baby? Your baby may be dreaming about you, too. Brain wave activity measured in a developing fetus shows different sleep cycles, including the rapid eye movement phase, the stage when dreaming occurs.



MAY be. There is JUST no conclusive evidence showing that this brain activity is indicative of sentience, or that thumb sucking is anything more than a reflexive response. It is also not conclusive that mice dreams are anything more than memories, and memories are not a definitive indicator of sentience, either.

http://cds.ismrm.org/ismrm-2000/PDF3/0875.pdf  - A medical journal on fetal brain response to _music_

There are a lot more but you can go looking for some yourself.
[/QUOTE]

What a crock. That study says that even though they did 30 reps of the music and silence on the fetus, they could only analyze 5 out of the 30 reps, for the study and this was in three out of 14 of the occassions, based on motion of the mother versus motion of the fetus, and involuntary bowel movements, etc. 
It is not conclusive, at all. 

Also, a fetus having a REACTION is much akin to a reflex, and is not the same thing as being sentient. The fact that it CAN hear, and reflex when it does hear something, does not indicate that it understands or can process what it heard, it only shows that the fetus HEARD it. If the portion of the brain that controls hearing was not functional, then the fetus would not hear it, that is why the study detected brain activity. The fetus actually making a movement is not indicative that the movement was in response to any music whatsoever. This study had no conclusion, and SAID ITSELF that their technology was inadequate to come to a conclusion. 




> And that was the point.  Are you really that dense?  The man has no choice to shove off the responsibility; it is ALL on the woman.



He can take responsibility for having sex, also. Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. If you want to argue this, then you have to concede that much. Women do not choose to get pregnant any more than men choose to get them pregnant. There are no "guilty parties" in this, besides both of the people who had sex to begin with. Sorry, honey, but as long as the man never married the woman, he really has no say in the matter. He is not her "partner", he is just her "sperm donor", and until THAT problem is rectified, then he has no REASON to try to make any claim about what she does with her body. The problem is not with people having SEX, it is with people having sex before they are married, and women being made to be the villains, without fail. If she becomes an unwed single parent, she is also vilified. Men who are required to pay child support are treated as victims, as usual. If they are late, the family, friends, and employers they have actually feel sorry for them. Men can actually use the argument "I need this job- I am late on my child support payments!" and actually get some empathy from an employer. Women who say "I have a child I have to support alone, whose father has never given me a penny to help" are treated like whores. This is how life is, and it is not equal, and not fair to women. 



> SHE gets to decide whether or not the man is allowed to put the child up for adoption, have an abortion, or even to release him from the obligation.  I did not whine about this at all, I believe the man should be held accountable.  IT WAS YOU THAT WHINED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT GO FOR THE WOMAN.  YOU think that a woman should not be held accountable for getting pregnant; all she has to do is get an abortion.  You fail to realize that the woman should also be held accountable.



Again, if the man is married to the woman, she cannot give it up for adoption. You make this claim as if it is across the board, but much can be said for personal responsibility on both sides of the token.
A woman IS entirely responsible for the pregnancy and the child she births or the fetus she does not birth if she is not married to the father. You want everyone to think of woman as the brakes and men as the gas. That is not how it works, anymore. 




> Show a SINGLE statistic here.  Shut the fuck up if all you are going to do is LIE.  Wagers are garnished, homes taken and the law comes back to a man that does not pay with an iron fist.  I have seen it before.



Sure- I have seen that happen too. Shame that men go so long without supporting their children. It is NOT a shame that the women actually go and hire an attorney to fulfill the judgment and collect the male's obligation.
Still, about 95% of all unpaid child support is NOT collected. 
Here is from the Office of the Inspector General, on medicare granted health care workers, mostly physicians in arrears:



> FINDINGS
> 
> *At Least Two Thirds of Absent Parents in Our Sample Were Not Current in Meeting Their Child Support Obligations.*
> Of 210 non-custodial parents in a sample which we drew for further analysis, only 53 were current in making payments both to meet their monthly support obligations and to reduce their arrears. A total of 140 were delinquent in meeting their monthly obligations, in reducing arrears, or both. (The remaining 17 records were incomplete.


http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-07-95-00390.pdf

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-06-06-00070.pdf



> Excellent, if you have a child and I dont want to take care of it I will just hire a hit man, that is taking responsibility after all.



For that to work, then you would have to have the hit man kill the woman, in order to destroy the fetus. That is murder. 
Abortion doctors are not hit men, they are health care practitioners, and are practicing legally. There is nothing wrong with evacuating the uterus, any more than it is wrong to evacuate the bowels, or the clogged artery. If something is causing you problems, the common response it to get rid of it. 





> As stated above, in many partial birth abortions (which you seem to support and all your arguments go out the window) and late term abortions it can.  It has already been pointed out to you that there are many children who survive their mother while in the womb from an accident or other tragedy.  I fail to see how the lack of a death certificate actually means anything either.  If you fail to get one you never were truly alive!!!  PROOF JESUS IS A MYTH  he could not have been alive as he does not have a death certificate.



I didnt say that one needed a birth certficate to be alive. Only recently did we even start using certificates to track lineage. However, fetuses and conceptions are not tracked on geneology charts. I do understand that sometimes a fetus will survive a fender bender. That does not change the risk it has that it may have been a full on crash, in which the woman stopped breathing for a minute or two. You cannot deny that the fetus is prone to all dangers and risks that the woman is prone to. 



> > Another thing- if a woman is already financially impaired (which is the case with most abortions) or already has all the children she wants, for the time being, why should that be some kind of "inexcusable reasoning", to you- for her to choose not to have her next pregnancy come to term, as opposed to her conceiving a ZEF which ended up lacking a brain?
> 
> 
> That is why the first trimester term.  Is that really to much strain on you that you cant decide in that time frame?


You ignored the rest of my post- Some women do not even find out that they are pregnant or that something is seriously wrong, until later on in the pregnancy. Is it really such a strain on you that you cannot imagine such an event occurring as this??


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> He can take responsibility for having sex,




Just don't imply that she should, too.

Lay off the crackpipe feminism,.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

K9Buck said:


> I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger.  I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum.  But it is what I believe.  Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience.  In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.
> 
> Now I'll duck for cover.



For the record, I am a libertarian, and am pro choice, from conception to one second before the actual birth. Now, Duck, cause here it comes... lol!!

I only have one question- How is it any less convenient or any more moral for a woman to terminate the pregnancy, just because of the "life in danger" clause?

One could easily argue that the weight gain alone puts a woman's life in danger, especially considering the obesity of Americans, in today's world. 

Also, if a woman developed higher blood pressure, even if it was not considered "high" blood pressure, but pre-hypertension. I would say that this is reason enough for her to abort. 
Considering the fact that a woman's blood pressure falls in the beginning, and then gradually goes up naturally during pregnancy, then it stands to reason that a woman who is already in pre-hypertension should abort, for the sake of her own life, knowing that her blood pressure will inevitably increase, and that a woman who already had low blood pressure would choose to abort, for her heart's sake. 
Why should either woman have to wait until her life is on the line, or she has had a heart attack, to choose to do this? 
Also, women who have pre existing conditions are at a higher risk of weight gain and hypertension, if they were to bring the pregnancy to term. Does it make any difference whatsoever to you, when her life is at stake, or does she have to be pregnant at the time she is on her death bed, to choose the abortion? See, if a woman died a year after giving birth, because of the weight gain associated with the pregnancy, and the higher blood pressure that followed, then it would stand to reason that having an abortion would have been a better course to follow, after which, a serious diet, or a gastric bypass, etc.. and then hope that she tries again and succeeds in having a child, without the risk involved. 

Cochrane Review Pregnancy BP Complications


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1845893 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > He can take responsibility for having sex,
> ...



Having an abortion is not being irresponsible, you goon. Getting pregnant when the time is not right is also not being irresponsible. It happens at least once in a lifetime, to about 50% of all women, worldwide. 


STFU. Troll.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 27, 2009)

If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 27, 2009)

georgephillip said:


> If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?



No, because that is not the legal definition for death. Death happens when someone's heart stops beating, as a result of them not breathing, and there being no air in the blood stream, to keep the cells alive. Most people who die are not later hooked up to an MRI, because within 20 to 40 seconds, it is known that measurable brain activity ceases, or at least that the person will not be able to be revived anyways. When they are resuscitated, and blood circulation is restored, that is generally when the brain death actually occurs, as well. 

Also, did you know that neuron cultures have been taken from the brain and grown in petri dishes hours after the person is declared clinically dead?

Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

ScienceDirect - Neuroscience Letters : Tissue culture of adult human neurons

Since some portions of the brain remain alive, after all of our measuring is done, then it stands to reason that brain death or activity is not an issue when it comes to whether a person is alive or not. 

Here is a wikipedia article on clinical death, and should shed some light on the whole issue of what is alive and what is not, especially in the sense of brain function. Enjoy.  
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_death


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844499 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, my God in Heaven.  I think evolution is a steamy pile of crap, and even I know more about it than this.

Assuming one believes in evolution, a common ancestor does NOT mean that humans and canines ever interbred.  It means that a completely different animal species divided down two completely different lines that eventually led to humans and canines.

As far as similar genetic structure goes, so what?  I seem to recall hearing that we share genetic similarities with dandelions, too.  Do you believe that humans and dandelions interbred at some point?  Were you impregnated by the weeds in your front yard?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 27, 2009)

K9Buck said:


> I believe that all abortion is immoral and evil unless the mother's life is in danger.  I know my stated perspective on this issue will likely earn me the scorn and hatred from the enlightened, tolerant, sanctimonious, peace-loving left in this forum.  But it is what I believe.  Needless to say, the vast majority of abortions are done out of convenience.  In other words, the woman/couple don't want the "burden" or the "punishment" (as our enlightened leader Obama put it) of a baby.
> 
> Now I'll duck for cover.



I wouldn't worry overly about it, bud.  There are much bigger, juicier, more inflammatory targets on the range who will draw fire away from you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 27, 2009)

georgephillip said:


> If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?



Since when does science follow the law instead of the other way around?  Seems to me that since science already has a definition of life, it would behoove the law to take direction from its better-informed colleagues, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel to serve special interests, with the historically-proven result of twisting itself into a pretzel.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Dec 27, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?
> ...



Wrong again, Punkinhead.  Perhaps you should pull your head out of Wikipedia and realize that there's a whole, wide Internet out there.

The American National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws proposed, in 1980, a Uniform Determination of Death Act which has been adopted by, amongst others, Kansas, as statute 77-202 as follows:

"An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards."

However, the definition is not totally patient-focussed and instead accommodates the needs of the medical profession and organ transplants; thus the word "or" in the statute as opposed to the word "and" in the more exclusively legal definition.

Typically, organ transplant cannot occur until death has been certified.

In accordance with the uniform act, organs can be harvested from an irreversibly brain-dead person, thereby legally dead, even though circulatory and respiratory functions are still ongoing and viable.

Organ transplant puts apparently unstoppable pressure on the traditional legal definition of death. In Switzerland, the Swiss National Foundation for organ donation and transplantation defines the moment of deatn without any reference to circulatory and respiratory functions and as follows:

"... complete irreversible cessation of all brain function, including brainstem function"

Almost all US states have adopted the uniform definition.1

Amazing what you can find about the law in legal dictionaries.

On the other hand, I fail to see what legal OR medical standards of death have to do with anything, because no one at all is trying to claim that fetuses are dead.  Well, YOU might be, but we've all seen what a scientific genius YOU are.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 27, 2009)

> Also, if a woman developed higher blood pressure, even if it was not considered "high" blood pressure, but pre-hypertension. I would say that this is reason enough for her to abort.


So I can kill a six-year-old when it angers me, since it's causing me the same amount of harm? Self-defense, we'll call it?


> Why can I only kill someone if they're threatening my life?


 Because sane people oppose homicide.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 28, 2009)

Proletarian,

You rally are quite mad.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 28, 2009)

> rdean
> Not sure I understand. What I do understand is that for the right, abortion is not an option at any time. Not even the morning after pill.


For the fringe this is true but for the majority it is not.  If the right were even the slightest unified on this it would have become law under the republicans stint in control.  The fact is most republicans just want tighter restrictions. 


> JD
> I understand that entirely- but the fact that they CAN be removed does not mean that they SHOULD be removed. Remember again. A right to live is not an entitlement to.



And this is where we will most likely never agree on.  I think the right and entitlement statement is bull because the fetus does not have the right to life in an abortion.  That is the right that is taken away during an abortion.  I believe the fetus _does_ have that right to life. 


> Also, an 8 or 9 month fetus can also "die" in the uterus, or be born at full term, as a stillbirth. So I have to say that this is not necessarily a fully functioning organism. I do agree that it would be pretty dumb and cold to abort something that late in the game, but I don't hate on people for doing it. Everyone has their reasons, and I respect that. I brought up the 20 week thing, because I am sick of hearing about "viability", and want to hammer that point home. You are not ONLY against 8 and 9 month abortions, but are against much earlier abortions as well, as you have said. I want to help cover those seemingly gray areas for you, as much as you need. Clearly, discussing it and asking for links and facts, you WANT us to give you truths that you are not getting from your anti abortion sites or friends or groups. We are happy to educate you, here. =)



The fact that someone CAN die has nothing to do with whether or not that life should be terminated.  Under that argument, a child can be terminated up to 2 years because SIDS can set in up to that age (at least I believe 2 years is the danger time frame but I could be a little off).  

  I brought up viability because your position with the life support statement makes no sense in those cases.  I dont stand on that argument because I believe that rights should be tied with the development of a individual mind and that is why I put the time frame at first trimester.  I believe that is a reasonable middle ground for both parties.  


> I have put facts forward as to why the breath is a factor. Once it fucking breathes (lather, rinse repeat) it CANT go BACK INSIDE OF THE WOMAN. Hence, it is self supporting, self sustaining, alive, a LIFE, and individual, an entity, a human being. How many times do I have to repeat this?



You dont need to state it again.  The issue is that statement has nothing to do with the points put forward.  Whether or not it can go back in  and it cant go back in even if it did not take a breath  does not change the fact that taking a breath does not change the physiology or psychology of the child.


> A newborn would not HAVE to starve to death, just because the mother chose not to breastfeed, or in many cases, could not breastfeed. This is a social expectation, not an entitlement or a requirement on the mother's part, for a born baby to survive, even if formula did not exist. In many societies, and even in the US, there are women available who are more than happy to continue pumping their own breasts, long after their own babies have been weaned, or breastfeeding another person's baby if needed.
> It DOES take a village. Always has, always will. The child does NOT have a "right" to the breast, or any other portion of someone else's body. To say otherwise is completely lacking respect for women, and expecting women to lose all of their own personal respect.



Yes it would.  Someone would HAVE to provide the nourishment if there was no formula.  If there was no one to provide it then the child would starve to death but that would be all right as the child apparently does not have the right to said nourishment. 


> pro
> When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.


?  I did post some info, but I dont think you read my post 
Unfortunately, much of the information is protected because it is in medical journals but you can still see the synopsis which gives a positive indication of the results.  Also, it helps to search under fetal myths and abortion to get the differing opinion.  By comparing some of the lit on both sides and using the articles in the middle is where I came up with the first trimester.  


> JD
> This peer reviewed genetics study shows that Humans and Dogs share the same ancestry. I can assure you, it may not be possible TODAY, but it has been possible in the past, as these recent genetics study show.





> JD
> Potentially, a Freshman in College will become a doctor, but we don't give him rights to perform surgery, now do we??


Analogy off again.  We give him the rights to attempt to become a doctor, the same way we should give a fetus the rights to at least try living.  Abortion ensures a fetus has no rights whatsoever.
Out of time, will get to the rest of the posts later


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 28, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844499 said:
> ...



The question is not something you imply that is so absurd as to indicate that it is common or current, or something that happened specifically between a canine and human, but that genetic interbreeding is entirely possible. Even that it is possible that humans intermingled with wolves so much back in prehistoric times, that the two created the dog- now considered mans best and most loyal friend. 

There is a lot of anthropological history behind the relationship between humans and wolves, and then humans and dogs. Dogs as a species, have only been known to be around for about 10,000 years, while wolves and humans lived together, and hunted-gathered together for thousands of years before then. 

Anyways, whether dogs were or weren't made as a result of some weird interbreeding situation, from way back when, the fact remains- if a human and a dog were to have the capacity of interbreeding (or a gorilla, or a chimp, etc- It doesn't matter to me, what species- if you want to keep the technically impossible separate from the technologically feasible, that is all you) then the conceived organism that results is still no less human than any other.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 28, 2009)

JD,

If a white woman is gang raped by a gang of drug crazed Negros should she be permitted the option of having an abortion if she becomes pregnant?


----------



## Contumacious (Dec 28, 2009)

georgephillip said:


> If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?



WTF.

"What is missing? The missing piece is individuality ... auton- omy ... a biologically discrete person. As long as the fetus is physically within the woman's body, nourished by the food she eats, sustained by the air she breathes, dependent upon her circulatory and respiratory system, it cannot claim individual rights because it is not an individual. It is part of the woman's body and subject to her discretion."

*Wendy McElroy*


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 28, 2009)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



As per the usual, you failed to read the actual peer reviewed medical journal articles on brain function, and instead decided to define death, to bring us no further along in the debate than we already were.

Brilliant..   

Well, let's rehash then, shall we?

People who think that the brain having function makes for a sentient fetus. I have proven this theory to be incorrect. If you wish to argue this further, I will happily QUOTE the articles directly, if you really need someone to hold your hand through the reality of it all. 

My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing. I have proven that the heart cannot beat or bring oxygen to cells without breathing to occur, except when a secondary system is attached, in this case, the pregnant mother breathes, and provides the fetus with oxygen. If the pregnant woman stops breathing, then the fetus will lose all oxygen, and cease from continuing the growth process that is gestation. This is a fact that is as yet, undisputed.
I have proven that fetuses, even full term births, are not always born alive, and thus, viability is a moot topic. 
I have repeatedly shown that a fetus' full term live birth and the caring for/ breastfeeding of a born child are both sociological responsibilities, rather than entitlements. The is proven in the fact that 1/3 of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, and that born children can be nursed by other women, as is common all over the world. This again is indisputable. 
I have proven that a fetus is not an individual life of it's own, based on the FACT that it is prone to any dangers that the woman carrying it is also prone, as well as any decisions or health problems that the woman has, causing an additional risk to the partially gestated fetus not resulting in a live birth. This is just one more thing that you can't argue with. 

Fetuses are not people, and do not deserve any rights whatsoever. You lose.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 28, 2009)

Yukon said:


> JD,
> 
> If a white woman is gang raped by a gang of drug crazed Negros should she be permitted the option of having an abortion if she becomes pregnant?



Of course. Just as she has the option to abort even if she CHOSE to have a sex orgy with a gang of drug crazed negros, or drug free negros, or white people, or hispanics, asians, or little green men, for that matter. Why is race or the emotional conditions that were present when the so called "child" was conceived, so important??

She also has the option to NOT abort, and should not be coerced into thinking that she should have to feel like she has to abort the fetus, to survive the attack. I am damn sick and tired of all the "abused little pathetic women" argument for abortion, when it comes to rape. Women are strong people, and many women who are raped DO give birth. In fact, giving birth after a rape is an excellent way to stick it to the rapists, because then a DNA sample can be taken and analyzed against the rapists, putting them in jail for an extended stay, and the woman finally getting justice served right, at least whenever the dillholes drop the soap. 

The point is- why should a raped woman be any less capable of surviving a pregnancy, just because the sex was involuntary? For so many pro lifers, you would think that they would all just say "Oh she should have just used one of those female condoms, then!!" Or.. "A woman having an unexpected tragedy that results in an unexpected pregnancy, is deserving of some unexpected joy".

Fucking emotional hyperbole, if you ask me.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 28, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> ?  I did post some info, but I dont think you read my post



If you did, I don''t recall seeing it- JD probably buried it under the latest batch of puppies she birthed.

Could you post it again?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 28, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> The question is not something you imply that is so absurd as to indicate that it is common or current, or something that happened specifically between a canine and human, but that genetic interbreeding is entirely possible. Even that it is possible that humans intermingled with wolves so much back in prehistoric times, that the two created the dog- now considered mans best and most loyal friend.
> 
> There is a lot of anthropological history behind the relationship between humans and wolves, and then humans and dogs. Dogs as a species, have only been known to be around for about 10,000 years, while wolves and humans lived together, and hunted-gathered together for thousands of years before then.
> 
> Anyways, whether dogs were or weren't made as a result of some weird interbreeding situation...



What?! You think we domesticated thew hound by having sex with it and bestial whores like you then gave birth to dogs?

I don't think your dog is safe...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 28, 2009)

Contumacious said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > If the legal definition of death requires an absence of electrical potential in the brain of the deceased, does it make sense to legally define life at the point which the voltage in the brain of a fetus first becomes measurable?
> ...




Wow, another whore with no understanding of biology.

What's your point?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 28, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing.



What world _do_ you live in?


> I have proven that the heart cannot beat or bring oxygen to cells without breathing to occur


The heart can beat without breathing being present. *holds breath*

Moron.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 28, 2009)

Sorry, dude, I would have pos repped you but apparently I neg repped you too recently.

Remind me later.


----------



## DiamondDave (Dec 28, 2009)

Hate to tell the guy.. but the unborn child does breathe amniotic fluid before being exposed to air...

Personally I am against abortion unless there is life threatened or if the well being of the mother in a mental capacity would be traumatic to a point where she would endanger herself or the child... I am also for father's rights that are equal to mothers rights, for it takes 2 to tango

This is a developing independent life we are talking about here... with it's own DNA signature that is unique.. if this were only about the woman's body it would be her identical DNA in the child and there would be no need for a man


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 28, 2009)

> Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal". What happens to the kids? The mother?


I gave you a fucking solution and you have yet to say WHY you are against it.  What happens to the baby and mother?  THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS NOW IF THERE IS NO ABORTION!


> Well, my son was born three days late, and his lung collapsed, and he DID need medical attention.
> Whats your point?



Follow the conversation...
You said 
"Oh and lets be clear about the differences between a live birth and the birth of a "viable" fetus. 
A viable fetus isn't very fucking viable if it is born in a taxicab, or out in the middle of nowhere, in some mud hut somewhere, where access to life"
Obvously this is not true as my son was viable at 8 months and would have been fine in a mud hot, taxicab or anyware else for that matter. 
Folloe that now.  Your statement is incorrect.


> He can take responsibility for having sex, also. Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. If you want to argue this, then you have to concede that much. Women do not choose to get pregnant any more than men choose to get them pregnant. There are no "guilty parties" in this, besides both of the people who had sex to begin with. Sorry, honey, but as long as the man never married the woman, he really has no say in the matter. He is not her "partner", he is just her "sperm donor", and until THAT problem is rectified, then he has no REASON to try to make any claim about what she does with her body. The problem is not with people having SEX, it is with people having sex before they are married, and women being made to be the villains, without fail. If she becomes an unwed single parent, she is also vilified. Men who are required to pay child support are treated as victims, as usual. If they are late, the family, friends, and employers they have actually feel sorry for them. Men can actually use the argument "I need this job- I am late on my child support payments!" and actually get some empathy from an employer. Women who say "I have a child I have to support alone, whose father has never given me a penny to help" are treated like whores. This is how life is, and it is not equal, and not fair to women.


I never said there were guilty parties.  No one is guilty of anything here but there are RESPONSIBILITIES that come with having sex and you must own up to them.  I have no idea where you get the idea that men are somehow pitied for being late on child support.  I, and everyone I know, never felt sorry fore someone behind on child support.  The term &#8220;dead beat dad&#8221; is a worse slur to me than &#8220;whore&#8221; also.  People hate dead beat dads.  On the other hand, I DO feel sorry for single mothers and again, I don&#8217;t think I have even met anyone that EVER put forth the idea that a single mother was anything but a victim.  Most people ask in wonderment how they do it.  I do not know what kind of sick people are treating someone like a whore because she is a single mother but you may want to consider not socializing with them  


> You ignored the rest of my post- Some women do not even find out that they are pregnant or that something is seriously wrong, until later on in the pregnancy. Is it really such a strain on you that you cannot imagine such an event occurring as this??



   I ignored that because it is a farce.  Sure it happens but it is fairly rare and as I already stated, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK THAT SORT OF THING.  Get a damn test every three months if you are that worried and are not approaching sex safely enough.  Killing a fetus should not be a &#8220;fix&#8221; to &#8220;oh, I was to lazy to check.&#8220; 



> I only have one question- How is it any less convenient or any more moral for a woman to terminate the pregnancy, just because of the "life in danger" clause?


It is better to save 1 than kill 2.  No one&#8217;s life has priority over the other and the mother is the only one with a voice so she is the one that decides who lives.  To the rest of that ridiculous blather, it is IMMINENT danger to life, not &#8220;oh I have a little higher blood pressure.&#8221;



> Even that it is possible that humans intermingled with wolves so much back in prehistoric times, that the two created the dog- now considered mans best and most loyal friend.


!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hate to say it buuuuuuut.....
wolf = d o g 
Dogs have just been domesticated for so long they have slightly changed form.  As a side note, wolves and dog can interbreed, since they are the same species of course.


> People who think that the brain having function makes for a sentient fetus. I have proven this theory to be incorrect. If you wish to argue this further, I will happily QUOTE the articles directly, if you really need someone to hold your hand through the reality of it all.


Apparently I do.  I have seen no PROOF that there is no sentience.  If you can pull that one out I would be forced to concede the argument.  All I have seen is conjecture that active, NON RANDOM brain waves, reactions and active dreaming are somehow not signs of sentience.  I fail to see any reason in that train of thought.  I conceded that at the 30 day mark the brain wave were erratic and random in much the same way that muscle twitching is and that is why I did not completely agree with pro about the 7 week line.  The assumption that the formation of higher brain functions are not signs of sentence though is a stretch.

To the rape point &#8211; Rape is its own story because personal responsibility has been taken from the woman in this instance.  That, to me, is the deference between rape and normal abortions.  In rape, it was not the woman&#8217;s choice to have sex and therefore it should not be the woman that bears the responsibility of its consequences.  It should be noted that I do not believe that rape victims should be allowed any difference in abortion because I believe that abortion should be legal for the first trimester.  This would give a rape victim the time to decide and take the necessary steps for an abortion.  


> Sure- I have seen that happen too. Shame that men go so long without supporting their children. It is NOT a shame that the women actually go and hire an attorney to fulfill the judgment and collect the male's obligation.
> Still, about 95% of all unpaid child support is NOT collected.
> Here is from the Office of the Inspector General, on medicare granted health care workers, mostly physicians in arrears:


From your own source JD


> Forty-one percent of sample cases closed following debt
> compromise, either after lump sum payments or with all debt
> settled. In all closed cases in our sample, the noncustodial parent owed
> only an arrearage. Noncustodial parents in 65 percent of cases that
> ...


Note that 95% is nowhere in there at all.  Not even close.  I was surprised at the larger numbers though, and I must admit that I misread your original statement.  I had thought that you said 95% of child support is not collected, not that 95% or *uncollected* child support goes uncollected.  With a little more research I came up with this&#8230;

debt.Child Support - Main

It basically says an entire third goes unpaid in the middle of tons of other data.  I agree that this is NOT taking responsibility but really has nothing to do with the issue as they are _supposed _ to be taking that responsibility.  That is a matter of enforcement and something is obviously wrong in the enforcement of child support.  There is another thread that addresses this, as well as some of the rate insanities, though.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 28, 2009)

Um.. FA, I have to correct you on something. Wolf=/= dog, if dog is referring to the domesticated breeds.

Dogs are wolves, wolves are not all dogs-- Canine Lupis Familiaris is a subspecies of Canine Lupus.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 29, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1848894 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing.
> ...



I think she needs to be reminded that just because she would like it to be that way doesn't make it so. That a baby somehow measurably becomes more sentient in minutes (or even several hours for long labors) is ridiculous. The notion that a baby goes from NO sentients at all to complete sentients in the same time frame is even more so. Sentients is a factor of mental capacity. Your BRAIN. Not your lungs.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 29, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> the moment it takes it's first breath makes you angry? Oh and please do not confuse "person" with "human". I do not claim that a fetus is not human. It most certainly is HUMAN, it simply is not A PERSON.


There are some negative effects if you define a person once born for the mother. What do you do with an abusive husband that beats the shit out his pregnant wife and the unborn wanted baby dies? Or a random assault on pregnant women? Back in the day, case law defined it as assault on the woman, because a baby was not considered a person until conception and hence was not able to be murdered. That changed of course as it should.

Personally, I think a woman's right to choose should be protected without question in the first trimester. Going it should start to be restricted during the 2nd (incest, rape victims, indigent etc). And there must be a very very good reason (such as serious birth defects or the mother's life is in danger) for abortion in the 3rd trimester.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 29, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



That is a little unfair. Supporting abortion rights doesn't make you a baby hater or evil.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 29, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1849647 said:
			
		

> Um.. FA, I have to correct you on something. Wolf=/= dog, if dog is referring to the domesticated breeds.
> 
> Dogs are wolves, wolves are not all dogs-- Canine Lupis Familiaris is a subspecies of Canine Lupus.



 Typed it backwards


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 29, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1849647 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








  Kingdom Animalia






  Phylum Chordata





  Subphylum Vertebrata





  Class Mammalia





  Order Carnivora





  Suborder Caniformia





  Family Canidae





  Species Canis lupus





  Subspecies Canis lupus familiaris

ADW: Canis lupus familiaris: Information


Sorry, dude, but I take weight the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology more heavily than your post


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 29, 2009)

Hmmmm, did I miss something pro?  I was agreeing with you!


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> > Still waiting for conservatives to have more of a suggestion than, "Make abortion illegal". What happens to the kids? The mother?
> 
> 
> I gave you a fucking solution and you have yet to say WHY you are against it.  What happens to the baby and mother?  THE SAME THING THAT HAPPENS NOW IF THERE IS NO ABORTION!
> ...



No it is not, and the fact that you refuse to accept reality as it sits, is nobody's problem but your own. 
Having the capacity to be born and survive that birth, to achieve life, without technological assistance, based on some stupid statistic, does NOT at ALL equate to viability being some sort of guaran-fucking-tee that the fetus will be born alive, you numbskull. I have repeatedly pointed this out as an erroneous misconception, given you examples to back that up, and no amount of crossing your fingers and wishing is going to change that fact into anything other than what it is. Viability is a potential, it is NOT an ultimatum. Get used to it. 


> I never said there were guilty parties. * No one is guilty of anything here but there are RESPONSIBILITIES that come with having sex and you must own up to them.*  I have no idea where you get the idea that men are somehow pitied for being late on child support.  I, and everyone I know, never felt sorry fore someone behind on child support.  The term dead beat dad is a worse slur to me than whore also.  People hate dead beat dads.  On the other hand, I DO feel sorry for single mothers and again, I dont think I have even met anyone that EVER put forth the idea that a single mother was anything but a victim.  Most people ask in wonderment how they do it.  I do not know what kind of sick people are treating someone like a whore because she is a single mother but you may want to consider not socializing with them



Guess what? Having an abortion is just one of three ways that WOMEN own up to the responsibility of having sex. Men have every right to help make this choice, when they are married to the woman, just as they have every right to choose what happens to a child that is born, if that is a choice that is made, as well. The fact that a woman can CHOOSE to abort is what you want to define as not taking responsibility "for having sex". Sorry, darling, but having sex is not something that people do for the sole purpose of procreation. People also do it for RECREATION, and as such, any result of sexual activity is not necessarily a chosen result, even if it might be a known risk involved with having intercourse. For instance- a person can get unwanted chlamydia from having wanted sex. Chlamydia is undesirable, and the person who contracted it will generally seek medical attention to get rid of it. This is an individual right. Just because the person had sex, does not mean that the person CONSENTED to getting that disease.. just the same way that a person who had sex did not consent to getting pregnant. Both of these conditions, Chlamydia and unwanted pregnancy with a subsequent abortion, can and generally are easily avoidable, by the simple act of typing the knot, and getting married, as long as both of the partners are in a monogamous relationship. However, even married people, who have two and three kids, or more, also have unwanted pregnancies, and abortions. It is not that they have the abortions because they have no sense of value or personal responsibility for having sex or being parents- it is because they simply do not want the additional child, and do not want to deal with the accidental pregnancy, because they have had enough kids already. Over 60% of abortions are had by women who already have previous children. Also, pregnancy is no picnic, for many women. Some women have it good- they have wonderful pregnancies, and their resulting babies sleep a lot, are incredibly healthy, and cause mom AND dad no problems whatsoever. MANY women have colicky babies, and decide after they become pregnant that they do not want to deal with the post partum depression, the sleepless nights, the esophagal reflux, colic, constant phone calls to work, for the baby's health, disrupting the person's career and finances, etc, etc, etc. Now, you may say that women who have had a rough time with their first and/ or second child could also have their tubes tied, but for some weird reason- these women hold on to hope that their next pregnancy will be better. There is a LOT of stress and trouble that comes with pregnancy alone, and having one when someone does not think they can handle it, either emotionally, financially, physically, or otherwise, can lead a person to consider terminating the pregnancy. THIS IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. 

If a mother does not feed herself, how on earth shall she feed her kids? "Putting the kids first", is the BIGGEST mistake that parents make these days. A person can only care for another person as much as they take care of themselves. If a person cannot EVEN handle being PREGNANT for a few MONTHS, then how the hell do you expect them to deal with NINE whole months of it, much less labor and delivery, as well as the impending life long burden of parenthood, WHICH IS A GIVEN, regardless of whether she was to parent the child herself or give it to another parent for adoption?
I can assure you, this is not some kind of SHALLOW decision making process that people make. Everyone has to take care of themselves, and you should have, as a PERSON, enough kindless and humility to accept this as a fact, as well as ENCOURAGE people to take care of themselves, to the fullest extent of their capacity. Anything less IS indigent, and treating ALL women as some kind of baby-ovens who are only put on this planet to reproduce, based on YOUR emotional reaction to them making a PERSONAL CHOICE, just because you see the fetus as some kind of an above it all GOD, who should have rights that go above and beyond her own. THAT is an injustice in morality, if there ever was one. Not abortion itself- but the idea that women should appeal to your every controlling whim, rather than do something for themselves that might actually be GOOD. What is wrong with you.  



> I ignored that because it is a farce.  Sure it happens but it is fairly rare and as I already stated, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CHECK THAT SORT OF THING.  Get a damn test every three months if you are that worried and are not approaching sex safely enough.  Killing a fetus should not be a fix to oh, I was to lazy to check.



Oh that is ridiculous. Women are not lab rats, and do not need to HEED some kind of absurd rule that they should get tested every few months, for pregnancy, just because you have some screws loose in your head about controlling women, or putting fetuses on a pedestal. Get over it, Tiger. Rar!!



> It is better to save 1 than kill 2.  No ones life has priority over the other and the mother is the only one with a voice so she is the one that decides who lives.  To the rest of that ridiculous blather, it is IMMINENT danger to life, not oh I have a little higher blood pressure.



Exactly my point.. You would rather a woman risk actually ACHIEVING the inevitably IMMINENT threat to her life (which could kill her anyways, if she does not get the abortion in time), than to make a decision that is well thought out, and avoid that danger entirely. Pig. 




> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> I hate to say it buuuuuuut.....
> wolf = d o g
> Dogs have just been domesticated for so long they have slightly changed form.  As a side note, wolves and dog can interbreed, since they are the same species of course.



No dummy, wolves and dogs are not the same species. I have shown you enough links, which you so obviously ignored, just because the idea of a fetus being half- human being aborted is just as nauseating to you as the idea that you somehow got that I was talking about humans and dogs having sexual intercourse, which was not at all my point.. But anyways- the entire point on this was missed, so fuhgetaboutit.



> Apparently I do.  I have seen no PROOF that there is no sentience.  If you can pull that one out I would be forced to concede the argument.  All I have seen is conjecture that active, NON RANDOM brain waves, reactions and active dreaming are somehow not signs of sentience.  I fail to see any reason in that train of thought.  I conceded that at the 30 day mark the brain wave were erratic and random in much the same way that muscle twitching is and that is why I did not completely agree with pro about the 7 week line.  The assumption that the formation of higher brain functions are not signs of sentence though is a stretch.



LOL!! Again, you miss the point.. Any fetus sucking it's thumb, will have brain activity in specific areas of the brain. Of course it will.. That does not indicate sentience. It only indicates that the brain is functional, and that the reflex of thumb sucking has been activated. With "dreams", memories being activated also does not mean that the fetus has achieved sentience, just because the brain registers memories. We have no way of even knowing if or how those memories/ reflexes are processed. This AGAIN (lather, rinse, keep repeating) is NOT some clear indicator of sentience. You are grasping at straws bud. 



> To the rape point  Rape is its own story because personal responsibility has been taken from the woman in this instance.  That, to me, is the deference between rape and normal abortions.  In rape, it was not the womans choice to have sex and therefore it should not be the woman that bears the responsibility of its consequences.



Consent to sex =/=  consent to pregnancy. 

(hammering it home, lather rinse and repeat, another thousand times until you start to understand this)

You accept rape because you want to discourage women from making their own decisions freely, and you want women to feel like less than capable of dealing with a pregnancy, because it *helps* the anti-feminism movement to make women feel like they should not be capable of dealing with a rape, period- This is a power and control issue. Rape is NOT about sex. The SEX is not an issue to women, when they are raped. It is the FEELING of being controlled and ignored about what their OWN choices are. Raped women are EASY targets in the abortion issue, because control freaks like you can manipulate them into thinking that having an abortion should be their choice, and is actually ENCOURAGED by people like you, BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT ABORTION IS HORRENDOUS, so why wouldn't you coerce raped women into getting someting so "horrendous" done to them, right? Power and control, by BALL-LESS, impotent FREAKS, that is what the rape issue is about. Feminism IS NOT GOING AWAY. Deal accordingly. 



> It should be noted that I do not believe that rape victims should be allowed any difference in abortion because I believe that abortion should be legal for the first trimester.  This would give a rape victim the time to decide and take the necessary steps for an abortion.



What is especially weird about the rape scenario, is that rape victims are the only ones who use state funds to get abortions. They are also supposed to be offered a Plan B pill at the ER, when they go in and report it, and get their rape kit done. I honestly think that pregnant rape victims should have mandatory counseling and unbiased empowerment courses, especially surrounding the whole issue regarding aborting, adoption, or parenting. They should be armed with ACTUAL CONTROL over the situation, rather than coerced, psychologically, into having an abortion, and inevitably becoming anti abortion, because of how they relate their own abortion and lack of personal and social stygma control, to the negative psychological effects of the rape, thereby thinking that somehow being raped is the only way that a person can have an unwanted pregnancy. Again, the women's movement is alive and well, and is not going to be (excuse the pun) aborted any time in the near future. Grow with the times, and learn to love women, rather than just trying to control us all. 



> Sure- I have seen that happen too. Shame that men go so long without supporting their children. It is NOT a shame that the women actually go and hire an attorney to fulfill the judgment and collect the male's obligation.
> Still, about 95% of all unpaid child support is NOT collected.
> Here is from the Office of the Inspector General, on medicare granted health care workers, mostly physicians in arrears:


From your own source JD


> Forty-one percent of sample cases closed following debt
> compromise, either after lump sum payments or with all debt
> settled. In all closed cases in our sample, the noncustodial parent owed
> only an arrearage. Noncustodial parents in 65 percent of cases that
> ...


Note that 95% is nowhere in there at all.  Not even close.  I was surprised at the larger numbers though, and I must admit that I misread your original statement.  I had thought that you said 95% of child support is not collected, not that 95% or *uncollected* child support goes uncollected.  With a little more research I came up with this

debt.Child Support - Main

It basically says an entire third goes unpaid in the middle of tons of other data.  I agree that this is NOT taking responsibility but really has nothing to do with the issue as they are _supposed _ to be taking that responsibility.  That is a matter of enforcement and something is obviously wrong in the enforcement of child support.  There is another thread that addresses this, as well as some of the rate insanities, though.[/quote]

Bullshit.. You love to skew numbers and words. 

I did not say that 95% of ALL child support is not paid.. But I can see how an extremist control freak like you would jump to such a conclusion. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/childsupport/chldsu07.pdf

Now, the number of parents that child support is collected from, of the amount collected may be closer to 75%, that is enforced, at least- but these graphs are too complex to show us just how much money is lost due to unpaid child support every year. Notice that the graphs do show partial payments vs non payments, and full payments, but do not show the percentage of the overall picture, opposing a non paying or partially paying non custodial parent's responsibility and arrears, compared with what HAS been collected, irregularly or not at all. 
Out of THIS, 95% is NOT collected. JUST because most men pay some of their child support, or make lump sums occassionally, does not mean that they are not in arrears, in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. 
Obviously the government (who wants us to trust it in a state of relative blindness, and for whatever reason against which I am sure I have a gun to protect myself) can't just come out and ADMIT when the child support system is an absolute failure. 

But I do not NEED the census' overly detailed and skewed graphs written up in an unexplainable text format, rather than an Excel document, which is far more legible, even, to KNOW that child support enforcement is a fucking facade of epic proportions.. 

ASK 10 RANDOM single parents how much child support they have received in their lives, and compare THAT number with the amount they are owed. Also, ask them how many times they have modified it, since a change of job of increase in income. 

Poof. 95%. 

I have gotten a grand total of a little less than 5,000 dollars in child support from my child's now deceased father. At the time of his death, he OWED my kid 35,000 dollars. 

Do the fucking math. 

4800/35000= 13.7 % of the total awarded amount being paid. That leaves 86.3% of the remaining amount, to BE paid. The ONLY reason mine is SO much lower than the average, is because I never went back to court and got a modification of child support, when we were both making more money. The award that my child was allotted was based on him being a minimum wage employee, and me being fresh out of the military, and an unemployed new custodial mommy. 
Had I actually been a complete witch about it, and enforced the judgment a little further, the percentage owed would be in the VERY high 98-99% range. 

Again, DEAL. This is basic stuff, man. 

Also- check out how corrupt child support enforcement is:

A Review of the Mississippi Department of Human ServicesÂ Division of Child Support Enforcement


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

FA_Q2 said:


> Hmmmm, did I miss something pro?  I was agreeing with you!


Sorry, I misunderstood; I thought you mean _I_ wrote it backwards


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

> Just because the person had sex, does not mean that the person CONSENTED to getting that disease.. just the same way that a person who had sex did not consent to getting pregnant


So a baby is an STD to be cured with homicide? 


> "Putting the kids first", is the BIGGEST mistake that parents make these days.





That doesn't make the least bit of sense.


> I can assure you, this is not some kind of SHALLOW decision making process that people make.



Yes, it is. Most pregnancies are done so the woman can continue being a slut and having unprotected sex at the night club. Almost none are ever done in cases of rape or incest and a small minority are medically necessary.



> Exactly my point.. You would rather a woman risk actually ACHIEVING the inevitably IMMINENT threat to her life (which could kill her anyways, if she does not get the abortion in time), than to make a decision that is well thought out, and avoid that danger entirely. Pig.






You're a fucking moron. Get your head out of your girlfriend's muff, put down the militant neo-feminist flyer and pay attention. Just because he doesn't think some Skinhead should be allowed to kill blacks on sight doesn't mean he doesn't believe in self-defense; just because he doesn't believe you should kill your baby ay time it gets in the way of your sex life and binge drinking doesn't make him some misogynistic woman beater, you idiot.

Go read some Kate O'Beirne or Betty Friedan- maybe they can cure you of the stupidity you've been infected with by the militant lesbian man-haters whom you borrow your 'argument' (read: hate speech) from.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Women-Who-Make-World-Worse/dp/1595230092]Amazon.com: Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports (9781595230096): Kate O'Beirne: Books[/ame]


> No dummy, wolves and dogs are not the same species.



Do you know what a subspecies is? No? Thought not.

Tell us again how Fido got you pregnant and you had his puppies.



> You accept rape because you want to discourage women from making their own decisions freely



YOu have any evidence he supports rape? No? You're lying again? Thought so.

Just you you know, YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST. FEMINISM WAS ABOUT EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. THE FIRST AND SECOND-WAVE FEMINISTS WHO FOUGHT FOR SUFFRAGE AND EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE HAVE LONG STOOD IN OPPOSITION TO FAR LEFT SEXIST FEMINAZI SCUM LIKE YOU, BECAUSE YOU UNDERMINE THE VERY PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH TRUE FEMINISM WAS FOUNDED. YOU ARE TO FEMINISM WHAT THE BLACK PANTHERS AND CHARLIE BASS ARE TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF DR KING ET AL.


Now grow the fuck up, little girl, and show some personal responsibility- you know, like you want to poor drunk bastard who nailed your ass when you're begging for that child support check.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> LOL!! Again, you miss the point.. Any fetus sucking it's thumb, will have brain activity in specific areas of the brain. Of course it will.. That does not indicate sentience. It only indicates that the brain is functional, and that the reflex of thumb sucking has been activated. With "dreams", memories being activated also does not mean that the fetus has achieved sentience, just because the brain registers memories. We have no way of even knowing if or how those memories/ reflexes are processed. This AGAIN (lather, rinse, keep repeating) is NOT some clear indicator of sentience. You are grasping at straws bud.



You're the one grasping dear. What REAL evidence do you have that a baby is somehow less sentient minutes before it born than after? We all get that your OPINION (made simply for the sake of the most convenient rationalization) is that sentients is defined by breathing on your own. Unfortunately that is not how sentients is defined;



> sen·tient    (snshnt, -sh-nt) KEY
> 
> ADJECTIVE:
> 
> ...



Breathing is not what kick starts sentients. A baby has all of those things well before they reach birth at full term. 




JD_2B said:


> Consent to sex =/=  consent to pregnancy.



Actually, yes it does. You choose the behavior, you choose the consequences of it. If you consent to sex you consent to the possible outcomes of having sex. One of the potential consequences of sex is pregnancy.  Most people here understand that libs like yourself have extreme aversions to being held accountable for actions. Most of us here have offered reasonable scenarios under which this potential consequence can be dealt with without bring a child to term. Have an abortion in the first trimester before the fertilized egg can be remotely considered a human being. If the mother's health or life is in jeopardy, she should be allowed to choose. So what does that leave that is so unreasonable to you? Essentially the only type of abortion us 'pro-lifers' are against is are one's where the mother is so irresponsible that she doesn't even bother to check to see if she's pregnant for three months THEN decides it's okay to kill her baby because now just isn't the most convenient time to have one. You're right JD. We are soooooo unreasonable.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 30, 2009)

It is hard to follow pro and bern as they pointed out the obvious again but alas, I will.



> No it is not, and the fact that you refuse to accept reality as it sits, is nobody's problem but your own.
> Having the capacity to be born and survive that birth, to achieve life, without technological assistance, based on some stupid statistic, does NOT at ALL equate to viability being some sort of guaran-fucking-tee that the fetus will be born alive, you numbskull. I have repeatedly pointed this out as an erroneous misconception, given you examples to back that up, and no amount of crossing your fingers and wishing is going to change that fact into anything other than what it is. Viability is a potential, it is NOT an ultimatum. Get used to it.


   I am and I stated as such since I do not prescribe to that idea.  The fact is that it does refute the insane concept that all you are doing is removing the life support.  All I was stating is that late term abortions are NOT doing that.  They are actually killing the fetus to remove it, not simply removing it or there would be a significant survival rate for lat term fetuses.  That argument is a fallacy and dead.  Just stick with your assertion that autonomy is the main point as you actually have a leg to stand on there 


> Guess what? Having an abortion is just one of three ways that WOMEN own up to the responsibility of having sex.


That is bullshit and you know it.  That is not taking responsibility for it, it is avoiding responsibility.  Said before.


> For instance- a person can get unwanted chlamydia from having wanted sex. Chlamydia is undesirable, and the person who contracted it will generally seek medical attention to get rid of it. This is an individual right. Just because the person had sex, does not mean that the person CONSENTED to getting that disease.. just the same way that a person who had sex did not consent to getting pregnant.


And we went over this as well.  The PROPER medical treatment to pregnancy IS prenatal care not an abortion.  You just dont want to face that fact.


> MANY women have colicky babies, and decide after they become pregnant that they do not want to deal with the post partum depression, the sleepless nights, the esophagal reflux, colic, constant phone calls to work, for the baby's health, disrupting the person's career and finances, etc, etc, etc. Now, you may say that women who have had a rough time with their first and/ or second child could also have their tubes tied, but for some weird reason- these women hold on to hope that their next pregnancy will be better. There is a LOT of stress and trouble that comes with pregnancy alone, and having one when someone does not think they can handle it, either emotionally, financially, physically, or otherwise, can lead a person to consider terminating the pregnancy. THIS IS PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.


Once again, that is AVOIDING RESPONSIBILITY NOT TAKING IT.  That is a lot of waaa waaa kick and scream self centered bullshit.  AS I SAID, YOU HAV 3 MONTHS TO MAKE A CHOICE.  


> "Putting the kids first", is the BIGGEST mistake that parents make these days. A person can only care for another person as much as they take care of themselves.


WOW!!!  The truth comes out!  My kid DEFINATLY comes before me and I have no problem caring for him.  That is incredibly self centered.


> Oh that is ridiculous. Women are not lab rats, and do not need to HEED some kind of absurd rule that they should get tested every few months, for pregnancy, just because you have some screws loose in your head about controlling women, or putting fetuses on a pedestal. Get over it, Tiger. Rar!!


Yes they should and not because of me but because they ARE having sex.  Same way as anyone that has many partners should be regularly tested for STDs.  That is the responsible thing to do, not that you would understand responsibility.


> LOL!! Again, you miss the point.. Any fetus sucking it's thumb, will have brain activity in specific areas of the brain. Of course it will.. That does not indicate sentience. It only indicates that the brain is functional, and that the reflex of thumb sucking has been activated. With "dreams", memories being activated also does not mean that the fetus has achieved sentience, just because the brain registers memories. We have no way of even knowing if or how those memories/ reflexes are processed. This AGAIN (lather, rinse, keep repeating) is NOT some clear indicator of sentience. You are grasping at straws bud.


No, I am not.  Thos parts of the brain would be RANDOMLY FIRING if there was no sentience to control it.  That is why, even though there is electrical activity, 30 day brain activity is not necessarily sentience but later activity IS.  You are ignoring all evidence based on bias and the notion that breathing somehow indicates sentience WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC EVEDENCE.  All you have said is not breathing causes death, not that it creates sentience.  


> Raped women are EASY targets in the abortion issue, because control freaks like you can manipulate them into thinking that having an abortion should be their choice, and is actually ENCOURAGED by people like you, BECAUSE YOU THINK THAT ABORTION IS HORRENDOUS, so why wouldn't you coerce raped women into getting someting so "horrendous" done to them, right?


Where did I encourage abortion in cases of rape?  Thats right, I did NOT.  I did say that since their choice is removed so is their personal responsibility.  I still believe that a rape victim should still be subject to the same rule that everyone should be subject to  3 months then no abortion.


> Bullshit.. You love to skew numbers and words.
> 
> I did not say that 95% of ALL child support is not paid.. But I can see how an extremist control freak like you would jump to such a conclusion.
> 
> ...


Again, completely ignoring the actual data.  THE TABLES SHOW HOW MUCH IS UNPAID, PARTALLY PAID AND FULLY PAID BY PAYMENT AMOUNTS.  That number IS CLEARLY DISPLAYED AND NOWHERE NEAR 95%.  Stop ignoring any data that disagrees with you just because YOU do not get yours. It is basic and you have failed to even bother understanding it.

  I could use my example too where my mother claimed tons of unpaid child support and my father actually paid MORE than was owed.  Does that mean all cases are like that, NO.  You are NOT the norm.


----------



## AllieBaba (Dec 30, 2009)

BTW, if your child's father is deceased and paternity was established before his death (child support order should do it) then your underaged child is entitled to survivor's benefits. And it's quite a chunk. Call your local social security office.


----------



## Yukon (Dec 30, 2009)

Mr Bass is nothing but your atypical Negro who wishes he were white. They are all the same.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1853381 said:
			
		

> > Just because the person had sex, does not mean that the person CONSENTED to getting that disease.. just the same way that a person who had sex did not consent to getting pregnant
> 
> 
> So a baby is an STD to be cured with homicide?
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> pregnant


So a baby is an STD to be cured with homicide? 


> Nope- Nobody is saying that a FETUS is an STD



OSo you recant your moronic assertion?



> . And homicide is a legal term, reserved for actual people.



Murder and manslaughter are strictly legal terms. Not so with homicide. Homicide is the killing of (especially) a human by another human or (more loosely) of any creature by its own species (homo-same + cide -killing, to kill)


> An embryo is the result of any kind of sex



We'll add sex ed to the list of classes you skipped.


> Soooo.. The 2/3rds of pregnancies aborted by women who already have children are all a result of sluttiness



Most of them. The rest are mostly stupidity. Kinda hard to get pregnant accidently nowadays, what with condoms, the pill, spermicidal foam, the morning-after pill... It's very rare.


> If a man wants to be sure that every bit of his semen that is used to fertilize a woman's egg is actually brought to term, and ensure that he is not denied his parental rights and responsibilities, then HE can also AVOID going to nightclubs and jamming it in to any drunk thing in a skirt



If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she can avoid going to nightclubs, getting drunk, and getting gangbanged in the bathroom- or however it was you got knocked up, if you're not blaming Fido anymore. Funny... we advocate responsibility for all parties. Youm want men to bear all the responsibily and act like it's some crime to expect women to be capable of adult thought. Do you not realizee that you're tereating women like stupid little sex toys incapable of exercising self restraint? Again, you spit on the very principles of femism in your attempt to demonize men.


> He is just as much of a misogynist as you are





Yep, I'm a misogynist- that's why my partners tend to be somewhat more dominant in the relationship, I have more female than male friends, and I have supported multiple attempts to pass laws that would push gender equality in the workplace.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> No darling- my child was born in wedlock. Nice try, again, loser. You just SUCK at this whole debate thing. Don't quit your day job.



You're the funny one. YOU are the one who claimed it's okay to abort a baby under the premise that child in the womb is not sentient. Problem is you didn't actually look up the meaning of the word first. You're gonna have to come back with another  lame excuse to kill a human being, because that one doesn't fly. You should figure out the ridiculousness of your position when even Roe v. Wade doesn't support your extreme stance.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

AllieBaba said:


> BTW, if your child's father is deceased and paternity was established before his death (child support order should do it) then your underaged child is entitled to survivor's benefits. And it's quite a chunk. Call your local social security office.



Yeah!! Thanks-  He already gets death benefits- but he has to share with the four other kids that his so called dad "serial fathered" as well. Amazing, his dad- Speaking of whores, Daddy-O had COUNT THEM- Five kids (mine was the first, and the only one within wedlock) with FOUR moms. Un-fucking real. 

My son gets less money through death benefits than he would have gotten from the minimal child support order his dad started paying from birth. Considering the 35K in back child support owed, also, I will come out in the negative, anyways. 
It's okay though- The death benefit comes every month on the same day, and I know it can be counted on, which is more than I can say for his dad- ever. Good riddance to him. I am only sorry that it was a stroke. He was 30 when he had it- and had JUST turned 30. That creates a serious family history for my son, and a major health risk. Ever since, we have been especially careful about eating habits and exercise. Daddy was a fatty, and I do not want my little pumkin to balloon out into a full fledged pumpkin like his dickweed dad. Obviously that could lead to early death for my son, so I am doing everything possible to steer him clear of that kind of tragedy. 

But yea- thanks for the information. How considerate of you, for thinking about that and sharing. =)


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > No darling- my child was born in wedlock. Nice try, again, loser. You just SUCK at this whole debate thing. Don't quit your day job.
> ...



As long as we live in a society that bases the bulk of their decision making on emotion, rather than logic, then this type of conundrum will never change. People like you who would prefer to do 90% of their thinking through their sensory organs, rather than with the one thing that, underneath all those big feelings, tells them that they are JUST not quite all the way right about something- That would be your brain, by the way- then they will always presume whatever based on whatever happens to cause any soreness of feelings. 

The fact remains- there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that sentience exists in a fetus, any more than there is evidence of a more philosophical nature that suggests that the newly fertilized egg can know it is alive, either. 

And even IF we could measure something like that- the fetal version of how information is processed and understood- it does not detract from the matter of that fetus still being prone to every single damned thing that the woman in whom it gestates is also prone to, and then some. Thus, it is not, in my opinion, a person, or anything deserving of rights or entitlements. 

I am sorry if you disagree. I know that my stance is extreme.. but in cases of autonomy, you are either for it, or against it. Lets be real, then:

I am for it during 100% of a person's pregnancy and life. 

You are only for it, under certain circumstances that you wish to dictate to that person, and for only certain periods of time during that person's life. 

Clearly, this amounts to one of us being pro individual freedom, and another one being pro governmental freedom to dictate. The latter is the most tyrannic ideology known to mankind, and is EXACTLY the thing that I am fighting against. 

Big Brother- Go jump off a cliff.

Case closed.


----------



## dilloduck (Dec 30, 2009)

DO you drive over the speed limit too?


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, if your child's father is deceased and paternity was established before his death (child support order should do it) then your underaged child is entitled to survivor's benefits. And it's quite a chunk. Call your local social security office.
> ...



I'm not sure, but it sounds to me like Allie's "survivor benefits" and what you call "death benefits" might be one in the same, so your son might already be receiving all he will get.

Now... please don't take this wrong, but from the description of "Daddy-O", I think you picked a real loser.  I can only guess at the answer to this, but (if you don't feel this is too personal) was he still married to you when some or all of the others children came along?

Happy New Year Lawyer_to_Be may this year bring tons of joy to you and your son,

Immie


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > LOL!! Again, you miss the point.. Any fetus sucking it's thumb, will have brain activity in specific areas of the brain. Of course it will.. That does not indicate sentience. It only indicates that the brain is functional, and that the reflex of thumb sucking has been activated. With "dreams", memories being activated also does not mean that the fetus has achieved sentience, just because the brain registers memories. We have no way of even knowing if or how those memories/ reflexes are processed. This AGAIN (lather, rinse, keep repeating) is NOT some clear indicator of sentience. You are grasping at straws bud.
> ...



PROVE that is is CONSCIOUS, and not merely having neurological REFLEXES. Having a REFLEX does not make one conscious. As such, it does not make one sentient. 
Having a reflex WILL cause the brain to activate. Of course it will. Our ability to SEE that the brain caused a reflex does not mean that the organism is conscious of that activity. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Consent to sex =/=  consent to pregnancy.
> ...



One of the potential consequences of driving is having an accident. Should those be left untreated? Risk of result =/= consent to unwanted result. 

Walking around in a shower room can cause athlete's foot.. but hey- If the person took that risk, then they should just live with it. Only the people that the fungus catching shower room walker gave that fungus to, unwillingly, should be allowed to get treatment for such a thing. /cough- BULLSHIT!/

Consent to sex does not mean that a person consents to getting HIV, the clap, herpes, crabs, etc, etc, etc.. And it ALSO does not mean that the person consents to becoming pregnant. 



> Most people here understand that libs like yourself have extreme aversions to being held accountable for actions.



 I am a libertarian. When I paid for my abortion, I was being extremely accountable for my actions, thank you very much. I do not ask or expect anyone else to pay for the unwanted results of my actions. THAT IS accountability. You don't have to like that, but it is the truth. 




> Most of us here have offered reasonable scenarios under which this potential consequence can be dealt with without bring a child to term. Have an abortion in the first trimester before the fertilized egg can be remotely considered a human being.



Not even remotely?? Oh I just gotta add a little fuel to your emotive fire here.. Check these pictures of very graphic fetal porn, here- these are aborted fetuses that SURE LOOK HUMAN TO ME. The thing is, I do not LET my EMOTIONS dictate to me what is a PERSON and what is not, based on the appearance of something. Dead people look human, too. After all, they are humans. But they are not alive. Just because they have a face, does not mean that they are alive or sentient or anything else that would trump my rights to dominion over MY uterus, which by the way, is NOT SHARED by you. 

Graphic!! Enjoy.. Go ahead.. have a fucking heart attack, now, you emotional trainwreck. 

The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Pictures







> If the mother's health or life is in jeopardy, she should be allowed to choose. So what does that leave that is so unreasonable to you?



The point is- in your little hate group against women, you anti abortionists will only "allow" a woman to do certain things under certain circumstances, none of which make a hill of beans difference to your own lives, and all of which can make a HUGE difference in that woman's life. YOU want to determine what is best for that woman, and when, and if she and her boyfriend or husband make an error even one time, and have unprotected sex, then she is automatically considered a whore, etc, etc, and a baby killer, yadda yadda.. and a barrage of other verbally abusive names to call her. If, however, she is VERY close to DEATH, or has had a man rape her (which she could have taken the plan B pill for) then and ONLY then, in those (individually- depending on the anti abortionist, of course) decidedly imminent situations, MAY a woman have an abortion without all the abuse from your team. 
YES it is unreasonable. It SETS an expectation FOR abortion to happen in certain cases, and regardless of whether ONE woman felt like she HAD to do it, because her life was at stake, or another woman felt like SHE had to do it because she just was overwhelmed with her own life- you will ALWAYS be calling BOTH of those women baby killers, and causing a lot of pain in them that is undue and unnecessary, and yes- abusive. 
It is ABUSE to try to control someone. It is using POWER And CONTROL OVER someone to try to pass laws stating that they can and cannot do X, Y and Z, except in situations as outlined as A, B, and C- as per the request of the majority of the population, the Supremes, WHATEVER. 
The majority of the population is NOT experiencing that woman's life. They are  NOT property owners of her body, and they do NOT have the right to tell her explicably what she shall have the right to do, or when. YES that is UNREASONABLE. 



> Essentially the only type of abortion us 'pro-lifers' are against is are one's where the mother is so irresponsible that she doesn't even bother to check to see if she's pregnant for three months THEN decides it's okay to kill her baby because now just isn't the most convenient time to have one. You're right JD. We are soooooo unreasonable.



And being on the brink of death is a pretty inconvenient time to "bother" to go ahead and TRY to birth it, as well. 
PS- Do you realize how many women do not know they are pregnant until they are anywhere between 7 and 9 weeks along in gestation? A woman can ovulate at ANY TIME. ANY TIME includes WHILE she is on her period, even. When I got pregnant, I expected my period the next day, and believe it or not, I GOT it. It took about 11 or 12 years for me to get a logistical answer that even began to make sense to me, that my pregnancy could be 11 weeks along, when THAT period was, as far as I could tell, my LMP, and it didn't seem like I could have been that far along when I had the abortion. I am now certain that I was either 11 weeks along, or 7 weeks along, or possibly 10 or 12 weeks. I thought for a while that I just had a "floating ovulation cycle", a term I heard from a few docs, which meant that I had my ovulation for my NEXT period, the day BEFORE my period started from the last one. That had me thinking my abortion was at about 7 weeks. The clinic did not have high tech ultrasounds, but they could tell me it was my first trimester. I looked, and it was a tiny little blob of nothing as far as I could see. 
Well, anyways, I talked to a couple of other docs who said that the bleeding could have NOT been a period, but was something called "breakthrough bleeding", a phenomenon that happens sometimes, early in the pregnancy. They said that this is usually just spotting, though. My period was heavy, and could not have possibly been breakthrough bleeding, because it was a lot more than some light spotting. Well, if it was breakthrough bleeding, then I would have been about 11 weeks along. 
I am still convinced that it was a full fledged period, and so- I did not know until I was at least two months pregnant, that I was even pregnant. I had an irregular period, and never really kept track of it, because it came when it pleased. I actually found out during an annual well woman checkup, and was very lucky that I didn't NEED a couple of months to save up the money to pay to terminate that pregnancy. I used an entire two week paycheck to do it. Actually, I got a ride from a pro lifer who couldn't have kids of her own, and could not find my debit card, and since my appt was the day after payday, and it was on a Saturday, I could not just swing by the bank. She was so nice- she loaned me the money until Monday, when we went back to work and I would see her. 
I was also pro life, before the moment I found out I was pregnant. As soon as I found out, I knew what I had to do, and that was to abort. I don't need to justify that to you or anyone. The reasons I had were justice enough for ME to make MY decision about MY body and MY life, and that is all that you need to know about it. 

Everyone has their reasons, and being on one's death bed, just because YOU think that women are lazy bums who use abortion as some kind of a luxury posh lifestyle choice, is absolutely ridiculous- and a very convenient way of avoiding the actual issue of women making their own fucking choices for once, without fear of aggression and oppression. 

When you actually have a uterus, you may actually understand this. 50% of all women, worldwide, experience an unexpected pregnancy in their lifetime. If you think that this is just some kind of tough shit situation, then YOU need to adjust your own moral compass, dude. I swear- sometimes I wish it were the men that had to go through with all this. I would rather work my fingers till they bleed every day in the fucking fields for 12 hours a day than to have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy again.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> As long as we live in a society that bases the bulk of their decision making on emotion, rather than logic, then this type of conundrum will never change. People like you who would prefer to do 90% of their thinking through their sensory organs, rather than with the one thing that, underneath all those big feelings, tells them that they are JUST not quite all the way right about something- That would be your brain, by the way- then they will always presume whatever based on whatever happens to cause any soreness of feelings.



On the contrary most people who know me would tell you that I'm probably objective and logical to a fault. You are the one trying convince all of us that a child is imbued with sentience within in mere seconds. Is that really logical or objective thinking?



JD_2B said:


> The fact remains- there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that sentience exists in a fetus, any more than there is evidence of a more philosophical nature that suggests that the newly fertilized egg can know it is alive, either.



The definition of sentient that I posted is straight out of the dictionary hon.  

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt) KEY

ADJECTIVE:

Having sense perception; conscious:

Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Either disagree with the the accepted dictionary definition or explain how it is you know, despite contrary evidence, that a child in the womb at no point experiences sensation and that it has no conciousness. You CLEARLY have no concept of biological development. You hold that a child in the womb at NO POINT has any of those characteristics. People like you make arguments without really understanding the things that must hold true for their arguments to be valid. To hold that a baby is not sentient until it draws breath REQUIRES that you believe, the biological precursors to the things that make one sentient occur in mere seconds. Tell us oh objective and logical one is that really what you believe?  



JD_2B said:


> And even IF we could measure something like that- the fetal version of how information is processed and understood- it does not detract from the matter of that fetus still being prone to every single damned thing that the woman in whom it gestates is also prone to, and then some. Thus, it is not, in my opinion, a person, or anything deserving of rights or entitlements.



You can't have it both ways hon. Now you're back pedaling on the whole sentients things and relegating your excuse to kill on the notion that a baby is not a person. So let's check the dictionary definition of that term according to the American Heritage dictionary. AND SURPRISE SURPRISE. AGAIN they disagree with you that there's a difference between being a human (which you did agree a child in the womb could be defined as) and being a person:


< persnickety 	persona >

per·son  audio  (pûrsn) KEY 

NOUN:

1. A living human. Often used in combination: chairperson; spokesperson; salesperson.  



JD_2B said:


> I am sorry if you disagree. I know that my stance is extreme.. but in cases of autonomy, you are either for it, or against it. Lets be real, then:



Given that you know your position to be an extreme one and in the minority, even among those who would allow abortions under many circumstances one would think that a logical objective person as you claim to be would be introspective enough to conclude that since their opinion is held in such small minority that perhaps it is worth reexamining whether it is really valid or not. No matter what the issue is, abortion or otherwise, if the pulse of the world puts your opinion in the minority and in your case a very small minority, that fact alone should be enough for any an objective, logical person (as, again, you claim to be) to give pause and say 'gee, maybe I better I better ask _myself_ some tough questions and make sure I'm on the right side of the truth.'



JD_2B said:


> Clearly, this amounts to one of us being pro individual freedom, and another one being pro governmental freedom to dictate. The latter is the most tyrannic ideology known to mankind, and is EXACTLY the thing that I am fighting against.
> 
> Big Brother- Go jump off a cliff.
> 
> Case closed.



I guess one has to clap for one's self when no one else will. Case closed my ass. You haven't made one single remotely credible argument in this thread. AGAIN you know your position is extreme. Many people including myself, are okay with abortion in many circumstances. You are okay with it in any circumstance for the explicit reason that a child still in the womb is not a person or human. Yes you are right. One of us is pro indivudal freedom. The news to you will be IT ISN'T YOU. Because:

The definition of sentient does not agree with you.

The definition of person does not agree with you.

The vast majority of the human race does not agree with you.

Most scientists would not agree with you.

ROE v. WADE doesn't even agree with you.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

Immanuel said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...




Yup!!! Shore was!!

I was 4 and a half months pregnant when we split up. He had gone into his usual rage routine, and decided to hit me a few times. It was the first time he had actually hit me, although since I became pregnant, he had pushed me, grabbed me, wrestled me, and thrown me around at least twice a week. My bad- I should have left him much sooner, People Change, yadda yadda... but back to your question..

So since I was early in my second trimester, and moved back home (a different city) early in my third trimester, during which time, my mother was in ICU for her cancer, and died.. Again, keeping on subject (my fucking second pregnancy, and it sucked even worse than the first) My husband started dating this one chick, and apparently was not using condoms with her (he had pulled the condoms off, for selfish reasons, I can only assume, with me) and then cheated on her with her sister, the day after sleeping with his girlfriend. Well, both of the sisters got pregnant, and decided to keep the babies. Soooo, Around the time that I actually filed for divorce, was the same time he was conceiving two babies. So fucking long story short, my son is a big brother to two girls who are only about 6 or 7 months younger than he is. Technically, I think we were divorced like a few weeks after his two sister-cousin kids came along, but honestly I am not really sure. 
Then he had this other girlfriend who he was with for a couple of years, and had two more kids with. The first of these was conceived only about 7 months after the sister-cousin girls were born (the girls he conceived and had during our marriage- because they were born to sisters, they are not only half sisters, but are also cousins, as well, YUCK) and the second one came about a year and a half later. 
I do not know of any other kids he may have out there, and the ones he does have, we do not maintain contact with, unfortunately. We have met the sister-cousins, that are my son's half sisters. I have photos of that, but then the one sister whose number we had, actually moved, and got married. The other woman, the one he had two other separate kids with, never liked me much, because my ex was always so fucking infatuated with me, and would always call me for emotional support and advice and write me these fucked up sick ass love letters and shit. So anyways, that lady and I have never talked to each other beyond me saying "Hi, this is >>>>name<<<<<, is Matt there, and may I speak with him, please?"- to which she would never even respond, just handed the phone over, all the while bitching at him for being civil to me and his other kids. That woman is such a bitch. Oh but he was a tool, too, because he would act like a douchebag and use her as his excuse for his absenteeism- not calling or sending child support, or a birthday card, etc. Every time my son saw his dad, it was on MY dime, and ME making time FOR the two of them to bond, which of course never worked out the way I hoped, because he was always fucking hitting on ME, and trying to send our son off to go play alone. Fucking douchebag asshole of a dickhead loser. 

What a mess. 

Sorry- but good riddance is right.  I just can't feel all that sorry for someone who is that fucked up. My son has actually been more emotionally secure with his relationship with his dad, ever since he died. Now, my kid just says that certain things that he cannot understand or explain, or just wants to be daydreamy about, happened because his dad the ghost did it. haha..  I like it. It is really sad and tragic, but it is truly better than what his emotional state was before dear old dad died. 

Thanks for the shoulder. I should have sent this as a PM, but my life is always overall an open book anyways, so I don't mind.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 30, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we live in a society that bases the bulk of their decision making on emotion, rather than logic, then this type of conundrum will never change. People like you who would prefer to do 90% of their thinking through their sensory organs, rather than with the one thing that, underneath all those big feelings, tells them that they are JUST not quite all the way right about something- That would be your brain, by the way- then they will always presume whatever based on whatever happens to cause any soreness of feelings.
> ...



Either way, as I have said repeatedly on here (in the midst of arguing the whole sentience thing) it does not matter to me if a fetus that is 4 or 5  or 6 months along, or even 9 months along, is sentient. The fetus is still not entitled to remain where it is, based on the fact that it is made from human DNA. Why would I impose such an entitlement, that might limit the rights of the woman carrying it?



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > The fact remains- there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that sentience exists in a fetus, any more than there is evidence of a more philosophical nature that suggests that the newly fertilized egg can know it is alive, either.
> ...



I know all kinds of stuff about biological development, to which I am objective about, rather than being SUBJECTIVE, which is the action of saying that a fetus that is sucking it's thumb, must then be a sentient individual, because YOU PRESUME that the thumb sucking is something that the fetus is even aware of. 
You PROVE it. This is YOUR argument. I could care less one way or another. I am arguing your points just fine- but it does not make a hill of beans difference to the WOMAN if the fetus is sentient and at what time it becomes that way. It is still inside of her uterus, and if she wants that uterus to remain empty, then she has the right to pay someone to empty it. NOTHING trumps that. I could care less if the fetus in question gave an ultrasound image of the Virgin fucking Mary. It is NOT entitled to her uterus for any period of time, beyond the time frame during which she DONATES her body, ALLOWING it. 
Forcing a woman through 9 months of pregnancy when she does not want it, is RAPE in and of itself. 





> You can't have it both ways hon. Now you're back pedaling on the whole sentients things and relegating your excuse to kill on the notion that a baby is not a person. So let's check the dictionary definition of that term according to the American Heritage dictionary. AND SURPRISE SURPRISE. AGAIN they disagree with you that their a difference between being a human (which you did agree a child in the womb could be defined as) and being a person:



I never said it was not human. I said it was not a human being, in my opinion. THAT (and the whole sentience and personhood debate) is not GOING anywhere, because ANYONE with an opinion on the matter is going to use some measure of subjection, rather than having the capacity to be entirely 100% objective about it, and like I said- I do not give a fuck whether someone else thinks of it as a child or a person or whatever it is they want to think of it as. It does not trump the life of the woman, so why the hell would I care what everyone else, besides that woman, thinks of her fetus??? How dictatorial can you possibly be?




> < persnickety     persona >
> 
> per·son  audio  (pûrsn) KEY
> 
> ...



Fetuses are not chairpeople, cannot become a spokesperson, and will never try to sell anyone anything. They are NOT people. That are not LIVING HUMANS, because they are encased in a shell. They are "pre-living" humans, at best. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I am sorry if you disagree. I know that my stance is extreme.. but in cases of autonomy, you are either for it, or against it. Lets be real, then:
> ...



It is valid, and your opinion does not matter to me, nor does anyone else's. My uterus= My business. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, this amounts to one of us being pro individual freedom, and another one being pro governmental freedom to dictate. The latter is the most tyrannic ideology known to mankind, and is EXACTLY the thing that I am fighting against.
> ...



Which is pretty good- not great and needs some work, but whatev. 



> You are okay with it in any circumstance for the explicit reason that a child still in the womb is not a person or human.



I never ONCE said I was OKAY with those abortions. I said I am "for" the allowance of them to happen by the woman's choice. That does not mean I am okay with them. Stop putting words into my mouth. It is not conducive to a proper debate, for one thing. Also, it really just irritates the shit out of me when you do that. =)



> Yes you are right. One of us is pro indivudal freedom. The news to you will be IT ISN'T YOU. Because:
> 
> The definition of sentient does not agree with you.



No, it doesn't agree with YOU. The fact that you cannot read for comprehension's sake is not lost on me, either. Sentience is consciousness. Prove the fucking fetus is conscious and aware, and not just having a reflex. Go ahead. You CANT. They DONT. Move the fuck on. 



> The definition of person does not agree with you.



Sales person (not a fetus!) Chairperson (not a fetus!) But hey, lets get some more definition examples from you, that I can shoot quickly down. This is TOO easy. Thanks. 



> The vast majority of the human race does not agree with you.



You got me there-  And the vast majority of the human race did not agree with Chris Columbus, but look at the name of this very message board in which you DARE to attempt the argument that popular opinion is always right. Dumbfuck. 



> Most scientists would not agree with you.



Eh most scientists didn't believe Columbus, either. Whats your point again??  



> ROE v. WADE doesn't even agree with you.



Clearly, they agree more with me than with you.. or else 3rd trimester abortions would not be allowed in ANY case, and the so called "sentient, viable fetus" wold be C-sectioned out, based on some freakish entitlement, which is the way YOU TRULY want it. Too fuckin bad. 

G'night.


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> PROVE that is is CONSCIOUS, and not merely having neurological REFLEXES. Having a REFLEX does not make one conscious. As such, it does not make one sentient.
> Having a reflex WILL cause the brain to activate. Of course it will. Our ability to SEE that the brain caused a reflex does not mean that the organism is conscious of that activity.




Show me the evidence that children in the womb lack awareness. Show me the evidence that they have perceptably more self awareness in the span of mere seconds. Since we all know you can't prove a negative the very best you can argue is that you don't know whether it is sentient or not. Meanwhile the scientific evidence is on my side. 





JD_2B said:


> One of the potential consequences of driving is having an accident. Should those be left untreated? Risk of result =/= consent to unwanted result.
> 
> Walking around in a shower room can cause athlete's foot.. but hey- If the person took that risk, then they should just live with it. Only the people that the fungus catching shower room walker gave that fungus to, unwillingly, should be allowed to get treatment for such a thing. /cough- BULLSHIT!/
> 
> Consent to sex does not mean that a person consents to getting HIV, the clap, herpes, crabs, etc, etc, etc.. And it ALSO does not mean that the person consents to becoming pregnant.



Now you're just being intellectually dishonest. No one is saying that you can't remedy the consequences of various behaviors. All anyone is saying is that one of your options is that you can't take another human life to remedy that the consequences of that behavior.




JD_2B said:


> Not even remotely?? Oh I just gotta add a little fuel to your emotive fire here.. Check these pictures of very graphic fetal porn, here- these are aborted fetuses that SURE LOOK HUMAN TO ME. The thing is, I do not LET my EMOTIONS dictate to me what is a PERSON and what is not, based on the appearance of something. Dead people look human, too. After all, they are humans. But they are not alive. Just because they have a face, does not mean that they are alive or sentient or anything else that would trump my rights to dominion over MY uterus, which by the way, is NOT SHARED by you.
> 
> Graphic!! Enjoy.. Go ahead.. have a fucking heart attack, now, you emotional trainwreck.
> 
> The Case Against Abortion: Abortion Pictures



seen many already. You're presumption on how I emote is quite off.



JD_2B said:


> The point is- in your little hate group against women, you anti abortionists will only "allow" a woman to do certain things under certain circumstances, none of which make a hill of beans difference to your own lives, and all of which can make a HUGE difference in that woman's life. YOU want to determine what is best for that woman, and when, and if she and her boyfriend or husband make an error even one time, and have unprotected sex, then she is automatically considered a whore, etc, etc, and a baby killer, yadda yadda.. and a barrage of other verbally abusive names to call her. If, however, she is VERY close to DEATH, or has had a man rape her (which she could have taken the plan B pill for) then and ONLY then, in those (individually- depending on the anti abortionist, of course) decidedly imminent situations, MAY a woman have an abortion without all the abuse from your team.
> YES it is unreasonable. It SETS an expectation FOR abortion to happen in certain cases, and regardless of whether ONE woman felt like she HAD to do it, because her life was at stake, or another woman felt like SHE had to do it because she just was overwhelmed with her own life- you will ALWAYS be calling BOTH of those women baby killers, and causing a lot of pain in them that is undue and unnecessary, and yes- abusive.
> It is ABUSE to try to control someone. It is using POWER And CONTROL OVER someone to try to pass laws stating that they can and cannot do X, Y and Z, except in situations as outlined as A, B, and C- as per the request of the majority of the population, the Supremes, WHATEVER.
> The majority of the population is NOT experiencing that woman's life. They are  NOT property owners of her body, and they do NOT have the right to tell her explicably what she shall have the right to do, or when. YES that is UNREASONABLE.



The we are woman haters argument dioesn't fly either. My position is simple. I believe and the OBJECTIVE (for a word you're so fond of throwing around you really don't exemplify it too well) evidence backs up that a baby is a human, sentient being at some point before being birthed. As I am also oppossed to murder I am thus oppossed to a woman choosing to take that human life. To that end my FEELING about women (love, hate, etc.) is irrelevant.  



JD_2B said:


> And being on the brink of death is a pretty inconvenient time to "bother" to go ahead and TRY to birth it, as well.



I scenario in which most of us have agreed would make an abortion permissable. So we can drop that one now right?




JD_2B said:


> PS- Do you realize how many women do not know they are pregnant until they are anywhere between 7 and 9 weeks along in gestation? A woman can ovulate at ANY TIME. ANY TIME includes WHILE she is on her period, even. When I got pregnant, I expected my period the next day, and believe it or not, I GOT it. It took about 11 or 12 years for me to get a logistical answer that even began to make sense to me, that my pregnancy could be 11 weeks along, when THAT period was, as far as I could tell, my LMP, and it didn't seem like I could have been that far along when I had the abortion. I am now certain that I was either 11 weeks along, or 7 weeks along, or possibly 10 or 12 weeks. I thought for a while that I just had a "floating ovulation cycle", a term I heard from a few docs, which meant that I had my ovulation for my NEXT period, the day BEFORE my period started from the last one. That had me thinking my abortion was at about 7 weeks. The clinic did not have high tech ultrasounds, but they could tell me it was my first trimester. I looked, and it was a tiny little blob of nothing as far as I could see.
> Well, anyways, I talked to a couple of other docs who said that the bleeding could have NOT been a period, but was something called "breakthrough bleeding", a phenomenon that happens sometimes, early in the pregnancy. They said that this is usually just spotting, though. My period was heavy, and could not have possibly been breakthrough bleeding, because it was a lot more than some light spotting. Well, if it was breakthrough bleeding, then I would have been about 11 weeks along.



All of this is just an excuse. Stop this woe is me bullshit about how you didn't know. YOU KNOW A CONSEQUENCE OF SEX IS PREGNANCY. Therefore you KNOW the possibility existed that after you had sex you could be pregnant. That you didn't even entertain the possibility for 10 weeks or so of one of the two reasons people have sex in the first place is plain and simple irresponsibility on your part.



JD_2B said:


> I am still convinced that it was a full fledged period, and so- I did not know until I was at least two months pregnant, that I was even pregnant. I had an irregular period, and never really kept track of it, because it came when it pleased. I actually found out during an annual well woman checkup, and was very lucky that I didn't NEED a couple of months to save up the money to pay to terminate that pregnancy. I used an entire two week paycheck to do it. Actually, I got a ride from a pro lifer who couldn't have kids of her own, and could not find my debit card, and since my appt was the day after payday, and it was on a Saturday, I could not just swing by the bank. She was so nice- she loaned me the money until Monday, when we went back to work and I would see her.
> I was also pro life, before the moment I found out I was pregnant. As soon as I found out, I knew what I had to do, and that was to abort. I don't need to justify that to you or anyone. The reasons I had were justice enough for ME to make MY decision about MY body and MY life, and that is all that you need to know about it.



You're entire position then makes no sense. You have argued this whole time that a woman should be able to choose whenever she wants, right up to moments before birth. Yet in YOUR own case. You had an abortion before the end of your first trimester. As I have stated before I really don't have an issue with that. How one goes from being pro-life to the extreme position of abortion on demand whenever is an illogical response to that event, considering in YOUR case you really didn't kill a human being in the first place.




JD_2B said:


> When you actually have a uterus, you may actually understand this. 50% of all women, worldwide, experience an unexpected pregnancy in their lifetime. If you think that this is just some kind of tough shit situation, then YOU need to adjust your own moral compass, dude. I swear- sometimes I wish it were the men that had to go through with all this. I would rather work my fingers till they bleed every day in the fucking fields for 12 hours a day than to have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy again.



No one here that I have seen has argued this, including myself. I am not taking teh position that must carry every pregnancy to term. You don't want to deal with it again. Then deal with it better than you did the first time. There are a gazillion precautions you could have taken and I find it really ironic that you want to share every detail about what happened after you had sex up to the abortion but don't want to get into any detail at all about how missed the several steps that could have prevented the unwanted pregnancy all together.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> As long as we live in a society that bases the bulk of their decision making on emotion, rather than logic,



?!





> The fact remains- there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that sentience exists in a fetus, any more than there is evidence of a more philosophical nature that suggests that the newly fertilized egg can know it is alive, either.



Fail. Read the entire thread again.





> Clearly, this amounts to one of us being pro individual freedom, and another one being pro governmental freedom to dictate. The latter is the most tyrannic ideology known to mankind, and is EXACTLY the thing that I am fighting against.
> 
> Big Brother- Go jump off a cliff.
> 
> Case closed.



Wow... you'll go through any mental gymnastics you can think of to justify killing your baby, won't you? Do you even care that you've refuted and contradicted yourself more times in this thread than I can count? Then you accuse others of not being logical?

I call Poe's law. Nobody can be that retarded.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I am a libertarian.




No, you're not. You're a libertine. Libertarian ideology is based on the concept of fundamental human rights for *all.*


----------



## Immanuel (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I hate the word douchebag, but if your ex was half as bad as you made him out to be in that post... douchebag was being nice.

Immie


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

Why Women Have Abortions

Woman is concerned about how having a baby could change her life     16% Woman can't afford baby now     21% Woman has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood     12% Woman is unready for responsibility     21% Woman doesn't want others to know she has had sex or is pregnant     1% Woman is not mature enough, or is too young to have a child     11% Woman has all the children she wanted, or has all grown-up children     8% Husband or partner wants woman to have an abortion     1% Fetus has possible health problem     3% Woman has health problem     3% Woman's parents want her to have abortion     <1%  Woman was victim of rape or incest     1% Other     3%  (Totals do not add to 100% because of rounding.)

~6% were medical, 1% were victims


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

*WHO HAS ABORTIONS?*



At least 80% of all abortions are performed on unmarried women (CDC).
Yes, JD- most abortions are had by sluts

47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion (AGI). 

Yes, JD0- it's abortion for convenience-- and it's multiple times



On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
No, JD, they're not victims- they just don't want to own up


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I was 4 and a half months pregnant when we split up. He had gone into his usual rage routine, and decided to hit me a few times.




If you act as stupid IRL as you do here, he was probably trying to smack some sense into you.

I thought you said you were military? Break his arm.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 30, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> That are not LIVING HUMANS, because they are encased in a shell. They are "pre-living" humans, at best....




being alive and human makes you a living human being....

Again, I call Poe's law...


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I know all kinds of stuff about biological development, to which I am objective about, rather than being SUBJECTIVE, which is the action of saying that a fetus that is sucking it's thumb, must then be a sentient individual, because YOU PRESUME that the thumb sucking is something that the fetus is even aware of.



I presume no such thing and stated no such thing. You want me to not put words in your mouth, extend the same courtesy to me. My belief that a baby has conciousness pre birth doesn't come from seeing one suck it's thumb in the womb. It comes from basic logic. You know that trait you claim to have in spades. Humans deveop conciousness through a biological process of brain deveopment. As such it is unlikely that such development occurs over night. It isn't a light switch that is off one minute and on the next. The FACT is THAT is a position that takes quite the leap of logic. That is position which YOU would have to hold in order support your position. That the baby's conciousness and thus biological development of it occurs in mere seconds. IF lack of conciousness is your justification for abortion, which as we find out later really isn't true.....



JD_2B said:


> You PROVE it. This is YOUR argument. I could care less one way or another. I am arguing your points just fine- but it does not make a hill of beans difference to the WOMAN if the fetus is sentient and at what time it becomes that way. It is still inside of her uterus, and if she wants that uterus to remain empty, then she has the right to pay someone to empty it. NOTHING trumps that. I could care less if the fetus in question gave an ultrasound image of the Virgin fucking Mary. It is NOT entitled to her uterus for any period of time, beyond the time frame during which she DONATES her body, ALLOWING it.



If nothing trumps it, 'nothing' would include human beings as well, so the truth is you really don't care whether what is inside you is a human being/concious/sentient/etc. or not. You're so big on being objective and brutaly honest than man up and admit that because you have some warped view about the rights you think you have to yor uterus you believe that murder is okay under the circumstances.



JD_2B said:


> Forcing a woman through 9 months of pregnancy when she does not want it, is RAPE in and of itself.



I'm not forcing anyone through 9 months of pregnancy. Exert the fucking gray matter between your ears and be cognisent enough of the fact that if you had sex you could be pregnant. Even if I did it wouldn't be rape by any definition of the term. Rape involves a lack of choice or consent on the part of the woman. In terms why abortions occur, rape accounts for about 1%. The rest of the cases are thus matters of choice, you CHOSE the behavior (to have sex) as a result you CHOSE to accept the possibility of all possible outcomes of that behavior. 



JD_2B said:


> I never said it was not human. I said it was not a human being, in my opinion. THAT (and the whole sentience and personhood debate) is not GOING anywhere, because ANYONE with an opinion on the matter is going to use some measure of subjection, rather than having the capacity to be entirely 100% objective about it, and like I said- I do not give a fuck whether someone else thinks of it as a child or a person or whatever it is they want to think of it as. It does not trump the life of the woman, so why the hell would I care what everyone else, besides that woman, thinks of her fetus??? How dictatorial can you possibly be?



You're qualifiers for 'being' as oppossed to human 'being' (which is ridiculous distinction in of itself) from what I have noted are breathing, and dependance on the mother. Relatively speaking a baby is hardly less dependant on the mother post birth than it is pre birth. So that one is out the window, unless you want to go ahead and condone murder till the age of 3 or so. You can get on your high horse all you like and say nothing trumps the life of the woman. Yet you can not come with one reasonable argument as to why one innocent human life trumps another innocent human life.  Good people do what is in the best interest of the defensless and you and every woman in the world have all of the opportuniites in the world to defend yourselves against unwanted pregnanacy before it gets to the point of choosing to take another human being. Despite your long winded explanation of your pregancny and subsequent abortion all it really amounts to is one long excuse for apparently bieng ignorant of the fact that a possible outcomes of sex is pregnancy and not getting to a grocery store to buy a pregnancy test because of your warped belief that just isn't a level of responsibility you should have to bare.





JD_2B said:


> Fetuses are not chairpeople, cannot become a spokesperson, and will never try to sell anyone anything. They are NOT people. That are not LIVING HUMANS, because they are encased in a shell. They are "pre-living" humans, at best.



And here I predicted what YOU would do. No dear you are not the great objective debater you think you are. You fell into the old backwards logic trap. While it is true that all chairpersons, spokespersons, etc. are persons. It is NOT true, contrarty to how you just defined them, that all persons are chairpeson, spokespersons, etc. You have admitted the a baby in the womb is a human. You are now contending that it isn't living? More proof you aren't the objective person you say you are. Any objective person can see what a truly ridiculous statement that is.



JD_2B said:


> Which is pretty good- not great and needs some work, but whatev.



It ain't me that needs the work hon. Given you are the minority opinion, again you would do well to examine whether it is yours that needs the work.



JD_2B said:


> I never ONCE said I was OKAY with those abortions. I said I am "for" the allowance of them to happen by the woman's choice. That does not mean I am okay with them. Stop putting words into my mouth. It is not conducive to a proper debate, for one thing. Also, it really just irritates the shit out of me when you do that. =)



Semantics again dear. And as I said above if you want that courtesy extended you need to do the same with me.



JD_2B said:


> No, it doesn't agree with YOU. The fact that you cannot read for comprehension's sake is not lost on me, either. Sentience is consciousness. Prove the fucking fetus is conscious and aware, and not just having a reflex. Go ahead. You CANT. They DONT. Move the fuck on.



Can you prove a baby in the womb is not concsious? The evidence that it is, is on my side. But for arguments sake the very best EITHER of us could contend is that we simply don't know. 



JD_2B said:


> Sales person (not a fetus!) Chairperson (not a fetus!) But hey, lets get some more definition examples from you, that I can shoot quickly down. This is TOO easy. Thanks.



See your false logic above.



JD_2B said:


> Clearly, they agree more with me than with you.. or else 3rd trimester abortions would not be allowed in ANY case, and the so called "sentient, viable fetus" wold be C-sectioned out, based on some freakish entitlement, which is the way YOU TRULY want it. Too fuckin bad.



I believe it did allow for provisions where the mother's  life was in jeopardy. Their decision was essentally that one has right to privacy and thus an abortion up until the fetus was viable which the included with the help of medical technology. Which I am pretty much in agreement with.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> I know all kinds of stuff about biological development,




All evidence to the contrary


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 31, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1856319 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I am a libertarian.
> ...



INCLUDING the woman. 

Fetal rights cannot exist, because a fetus does not count as an individual.

If they did, then you would be able to count them during a census. They can not be counted, because they do not have any entitlement to be counted, because they are not entitled to the oxygen in their bodies. That oxygen support can stop at any given time, therefore it is NOT an entitlement or a right. 

Being a libertarian, I support rights to all individuals, no matter what their race, gender, religious views, sexual preference, or disabled/ indigent status. A fetus is not an indigent, though- one must be an individual (countable in a census) to have "status" as an indigent, etc. Status means it also must have STANDING, which is an absolute and total impossibility, being that the fetus can NOT be represented as a plaintiff without remaining inside of the mother's uterus, which would CLEARLY be located on the defendant's side of the courtroom, because it would be FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE DEFENDANT, who could very well have a heart attack and die during the "fetal rights and entitlements" proceedings, for all anyone knows. 

Happy New Year.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1856319 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Including, not only.

Also children and the defenseless.


> Fetal rights cannot exist, because a fetus does not count as an individual.



Debunked time and again, starting before your posts about having puppies with Fido.


> If they did, then you would be able to count them during a census.



does the number 3/5 mean anything to you?





> Being a libertarian, I support rights to all individuals, no matter what their race, gender, religious views, sexual preference, or disabled/ indigent status.



You've proven otherwise throughout this thread. You are a radical female supremacist, not a libertarian. You're a mockery of libertarianism and feminism.


----------



## Misty (Dec 31, 2009)

Women should have the right to have an abortion but should be required to watch a sonogram of an abortion being performed before having one


----------



## Bern80 (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> If they did, then you would be able to count them during a census. They can not be counted, because they do not have any entitlement to be counted, because they are not entitled to the oxygen in their bodies. That oxygen support can stop at any given time, therefore it is NOT an entitlement or a right.



Not counted during census is your new qualifier for human being? Please inform the illegal aliens residing in the U.S. that they are not human beings. Then you justify abortion by saying that baby in the womb is not entitled to oxygen. Again illustrating how illogical you are. It would follow then that you must believe you can't be killed for convenience sake because you believe you ARE entitled to oxygen. Tell us all how that came to be that you or anyone else has an entitlement to breathe. (Heads up to everyone else that can see JD is bat shit crazy, this is gonna be good).



JD_2B said:


> Being a libertarian, I support rights to all individuals, no matter what their race, gender, religious views, sexual preference, or disabled/ indigent status. A fetus is not an indigent, though- one must be an individual (countable in a census) to have "status" as an indigent, etc. Status means it also must have STANDING, which is an absolute and total impossibility, being that the fetus can NOT be represented as a plaintiff without remaining inside of the mother's uterus, which would CLEARLY be located on the defendant's side of the courtroom, because it would be FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE DEFENDANT, who could very well have a heart attack and die during the "fetal rights and entitlements" proceedings, for all anyone knows.



WOW. You get more ridiculous by the post. I didn't think it was possible. You've basically just argued that a person, ANY PERSON can not be a plaintiff for no other reason then the fact that he is forced to be located on the oppossing side of the courtroom. Man that would make it easy to win cases. After all if you if you robbed me all you would have to do is cement me into your side of the courtroom. THEN the case would definately be closed ..


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 31, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I know all kinds of stuff about biological development, to which I am objective about, rather than being SUBJECTIVE, which is the action of saying that a fetus that is sucking it's thumb, must then be a sentient individual, because YOU PRESUME that the thumb sucking is something that the fetus is even aware of.
> ...



Not necessarily. They develop brain activity, through brain development, and the potential for acquiring consciousness. Actually, neurological development begins at conception, which means that the brain grows. For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work. Just because the brain WORKS, does not mean that a state of consciousness is present, as well. 
Like I said- PROVE otherwise. Basic Logic should tell you that Brain Activity and consciousness are not one and the same. 
I also have reason to believe that your own beliefs stem more from an emotional perspective, based on the vagueness of your posts, your refusal to show me anything of evidential merit, that a fetus can think, or have cognition, and the most obvious- the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic, using symbolism rather than concrete fact, to come to that conclusion. To figure out why and how you came to your conclusion, you are using backwards logic, aka induction, to find the root of your answers. 

You KNOW that just as a 9 month fetus has a full brain, which shows far more function than an 8 month fetus has, and a LOT more that we can SEE happening than in an embryo. You also KNOW that "see it to believe it" is an illogical way of thinking, but you have a hard time believing that any zygote or fetus is capable of thought, or brain function, because it cannot be measured or seen by YOU, or science as a whole, at least not as of yet. That is a fact based pattern of reasoning, but it is not deductive, it is inductive, and conditional reasoning. Conditional meaning that in your personal opinion, since born infants have the ability to think, then fetuses do too. There is no actual evidence to support this, empirical or otherwise, and thus it is simply just YOU making an observation, coming to a conclusion, and then trying to explain that conclusion, and justify it. THAT is why it is illogical. 




> As such it is unlikely that such development occurs over night. It isn't a light switch that is off one minute and on the next. The FACT is THAT is a position that takes quite the leap of logic. That is position which YOU would have to hold in order support your position. That the baby's conciousness and thus biological development of it occurs in mere seconds. IF lack of conciousness is your justification for abortion, which as we find out later really isn't true.....



I am debating certain specific points of development with several people on here, so excuse me for saying so- but what was your stance again? 
I ask, because if you feel that abortion is okay in the first trimester, and yet wish to assert that second and third trimester abortions should be illegal, or you argue that it is okay up to a certain week, etc- Then specify which week of gestation that is, and what happened in the minute between the second trimester and the first, or the second time frame in which you deem abortion as being immoral and the first, in which you deem it moral. Or maybe you don't agree with abortion whatsoever.. There are at least 6 people on here who I have been discussing this with, so forgive me, but message boards are highly impersonal, and I do not remember your particular stance. Explain that, though, please, if you will. =)



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You PROVE it. This is YOUR argument. I could care less one way or another. I am arguing your points just fine- but it does not make a hill of beans difference to the WOMAN if the fetus is sentient and at what time it becomes that way. It is still inside of her uterus, and if she wants that uterus to remain empty, then she has the right to pay someone to empty it. NOTHING trumps that. I could care less if the fetus in question gave an ultrasound image of the Virgin fucking Mary. It is NOT entitled to her uterus for any period of time, beyond the time frame during which she DONATES her body, ALLOWING it.
> ...



Again, murder is a legal term, and emptying an organ that is within my body is not criminal, nor should it be. 
I do not think that recognizing the fact that my UTERUS is MINE, to do with as I wish, is some kind of a warped view.  I do think that YOUR feeling that government can and should have the right to turn an bodily organ, that may or may not work, within a body, which may or may not continue to function for another 9 months, into some kind of mandatory baby oven, is not exactly being brutally honest about what you are even proposing. It is MY uterus, and whether I do or do not want anything in it, I am allowed to make the choice of disposal, or full term gestation, at my sole discretion. Like I said many times before, this will ALWAYS be at my own discretion. I can take a belly flop off of a high dive, if I want, even if the government wrote some law saying I should not have that kind of right. I can "accidentally" put too much paprika in my food, or overdo it on Vitamin C, as well. I can ask a friend to whack my belly a few times with a bat, if I want to. If that is an option that I am afraid of taking, because it could hurt- I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on my tummy, using a simple pulley system, and laying down. What can the government do? Not much. That is autonomy, in a nutshell, like it or not. 




> I'm not forcing anyone through 9 months of pregnancy. Exert the fucking gray matter between your ears and be cognisent enough of the fact that if you had sex you could be pregnant. Even if I did it wouldn't be rape by any definition of the term. Rape involves a lack of choice or consent on the part of the woman. In terms why abortions occur, rape accounts for about 1%. The rest of the cases are thus matters of choice, you CHOSE the behavior (to have sex) as a result you CHOSE to accept the possibility of all possible outcomes of that behavior.



So close down all the STD clinics, then, as well. Outlaw driving, too, and swimming pools- as they seem to kill thousands of people every year. Hot Dogs and balloons- take them off the market, altogether. See, a parent who allows their child to eat a hot dog, or hold a balloon, whose child chokes and dies as a result of that "risk"- Well clearly the child also accepts the risk too. Even adults who choke on large bits of food should accept the risk that they could choke to death, so we should never ever ever again call emergency services for them because in YOUR PERSONAL OPINION (not fact)- Assumption of risk = consent to the consequences, requiring that person to be refused medical care. 
Overeating that results in fatness should also be outlawed, since it results in heart attack, cancer, etc, and nobody should be allowed medical treatment for the risks that they chose to take, even if the consequences are dire. 
/sarcasm
Point: If you want to say that taking a risk on something equates to the person accepting the unwanted results without medical treatment, then you MUST be logical and do that across the board, and not simply in certain subjective instances that YOU deem worthy, based on some bizarre anti female agenda you are trying to push. 



> You're qualifiers for 'being' as oppossed to human 'being' (which is ridiculous distinction in of itself) from what I have noted are breathing, and dependance on the mother. Relatively speaking a baby is hardly less dependant on the mother post birth than it is pre birth. So that one is out the window, unless you want to go ahead and condone murder till the age of 3 or so.



<sigh> Read the whole thread, please. I have already covered this a few times. The mother is not responsible for the baby, physically, after it is born. The father can feed it, other women can nurse it (it happens ALL OVER THE WORLD THIS WAY, by the way) and other people can take 24/7 responsibility for it. Being responsible for a child is not physiological, it is sociological. Make the difference clear to yourself, please. Choosing not to take care of one's child is generally not neglect. There are safe baby drops, friends, family, and child care providers out there that are all sociologically responsible for babies. Next... 
<yawn>



> You can get on your high horse all you like and say nothing trumps the life of the woman. Yet you can not come with one reasonable argument as to why one innocent human life trumps another innocent human life.



Women are just as innocent as the contents of their uterine walls are. Why should the fetus get some entitlement to remain there, above and beyond the woman's entitlement to not have to go through with a nine month pregnancy and birthing process?
Remember- you have to be aware of your own assertions, and the lack of logic that you put into them. It is entirely illogical to say that one innocent life should not trump another innocent life, but you yourself are arguing that the fetus should have rights, which would mean that it's rights should trump those of the mother. Please explain. 




> Good people do what is in the best interest of the defensless and you and every woman in the world have all of the opportuniites in the world to defend yourselves against unwanted pregnanacy before it gets to the point of choosing to take another human being.



Sure- but to err is human. To be allergic to hormonal birth control is not uncommon.. and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely. Hence, the whole health care reform debate, when it comes to including birth control options. Please be aware that not everyone has access or knowledge, even, of basic sex ed. The lady that brought me for my abortion, told me a couple of funny stories of how uneducated some of the people she had met were. She was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, and we worked at the same command. One story was about a young lady (in the USN) from Tennessee, who had never heard of birth control, and when asked how babies are made, answered "Well, both people have to close their eyes really tight, cross their fingers, and wish for it, of course!!"
Another gal, slept in the rack just above this corpsman's bed, and my friend would wake up in the morning with actual RAGS, dangling from the bed rails. These rags were being used to absorb menstrual blood. They were hanging there to dry, for reuse later. She gave the young lady (another one from the hills of TN) some feminine hygiene pads. The next morning, the pads were stuck to the side of the rack, all washed up, and ready to be reused. 
Of course, not everyone who experiences an unwanted pregnancy is so uneducated. Even Doctors experience them, sometimes. Condoms are only listed as being 85% effective, with perfect storage and use, and these are frequently misused, or delivered in very hot box trucks, where their integrity is compromised. Those jellies also are only about 80-85% effective, and again, that is with perfect use. Some of them, you have to wait 15 minutes to use them. 
Many people also think that "withdrawal" is an effective method of birth control, and do not understand or know that pre-ejaculate happens before the male orgasms, which can cause pregnancy. Even if a man ejaculates on the OUTSIDE of the vagina, and even one little drop of sperm gets on the vaginal lips, the "labia major", even- the woman can get pregnant. 
Pregnancy does NOT always happen by consent- You can take that to the bank. 




> Despite your long winded explanation of your pregancny and subsequent abortion all it really amounts to is one long excuse for apparently bieng ignorant of the fact that a possible outcomes of sex is pregnancy and not getting to a grocery store to buy a pregnancy test because of your warped belief that just isn't a level of responsibility you should have to bare.



Fuck off. The only ignorant and intolerant person here is you. You just want to make strawman arguments based on unreasonable expectations of sexually active women. WE ARE NOT THE SEXUAL GATEKEEPERS, DUDE!!  



> And here I predicted what YOU would do. No dear you are not the great objective debater you think you are. You fell into the old backwards logic trap. While it is true that all chairpersons, spokespersons, etc. are persons. It is NOT true, contrarty to how you just defined them, that all persons are chairpeson, spokespersons, etc.



?????????????? You make no fucking sense.  Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!! 




> You have admitted the a baby in the womb is a human. You are now contending that it isn't living? More proof you aren't the objective person you say you are. Any objective person can see what a truly ridiculous statement that is.



A sperm and an egg are HUMAN, growing, and mobile. A tumor is HUMAN, growing- sometimes mobile. A mole is HUMAN, growing and mobile. They are not living, just because they grow or are mobile, and the fetus is not living, just because it has certain functions that other growing things do not biologically have. Growing does not equate to living. Growth is simply a BUILDING BLOCK of life's origins. A fertilized egg, for instance, is two combined cells into one- and being a cell, is defined as the BASIC BUILDING BLOCK OF LIFE. 
Having a block of concrete in your hand does not give you a building. It just gives you something that you can choose to build on, or chuck aside. 



> It ain't me that needs the work hon. Given you are the minority opinion, again you would do well to examine whether it is yours that needs the work.



I would hardly claim that I am the minority opinion.. In this thread alone, the score is 26 to 10, that a woman should have the right to choose in more cases than not, contrary to your belief, which is basically that as soon as a woman generally finds out she is pregnant, it is too late, because the 6 week gestated embryo has a brain that functions. However, the term "brain" is entirely subjective in this case, because it is used to describe a brain that works in a way that goes beyond it's basic neurological processes. Actually, the cerebral cortex is not formed until the 15-20th weeks, at all. 
The problem with this mode of consideration is that even a fertilized egg can arguably be considered sentient, from a subjective point of view. The fertilized egg is clearly aware that it is fertilized, and needs to get somewhere fast, and also that it needs to implant itself into the uterine walls. Well, we have no way of knowing whether the zygote is aware of itself, in a philosophical way (as sentience is really a philosophical question more than anything) or if, simply put, the zygote's mass of cells' neurological processes have some sort of self awareness, making it conscious of it's surroundings. Just because none of this is measurable, then the conclusion that just because one knows X, Y, and Z, from the time frame in which we have seen and measured the reflexive bodily actions, then that time frame is when brain activity occurs- is absolutely a best guess, which is totally subjective and inductive, not being based on facts, but halfway there facts that only support a previously reached conclusion, or better yet- hypothesis. 
A person can not sit up before they are capable of sitting up. They must actually have a capability to do an action before that action takes place. 
So- having the capacity to think and perceive and be aware is one thing, and actually doing so is quite another. 



> Can you prove a baby in the womb is not concsious? The evidence that it is, is on my side. But for arguments sake the very best EITHER of us could contend is that we simply don't know.



If you don't KNOW, then you are making a conclusion and THEN trying to collect information to support that conclusion. I cannot prove that a fetus or embryo or zygote is conscious or not conscious, but truly I do not care, because whether it is or is not does not detract from the fact that a woman is not a baby oven, who should lose her rights to a free and happy life, just because something with human DNA and brain function is inside of her body. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly, they agree more with me than with you.. or else 3rd trimester abortions would not be allowed in ANY case, and the so called "sentient, viable fetus" wold be C-sectioned out, based on some freakish entitlement, which is the way YOU TRULY want it. Too fuckin bad.
> ...



Morally, I am also in agreement with that. But, legally, I cannot agree that a woman's body should become her own prison, just because the thing inside of her has achieved "quickening", as they used to call it in the olden days, or some fact-less perception of "sentience" which has yet to even be proven exists in a fetus, in any medical study, anyways. 
I would be more prone to changing my opinion on this, if it could be proven that a fetus could learn and think independently, etc- proving sentience. 

I also want to say- In spite of you thinking that I am extremely closed minded on this issue, I most certainly am nothing of the sort. I merely have been in your shoes before, and experienced the emotional aspects of this debate that tends to cloud one's objectivity in this type of situation. I change my opinions regularly, and do it based on science and fact, not on emotional rhetoric, spinnage, emotional abuse, or any other tactic that the anti abortion movement uses. I have been pro life, based on an emotional reaction of my own, years after my own abortion- and when I later chose to come back to the pro choice side, It was because I could not defend my own assertions of fact, and realized that I was losing every argument, consistently, as a result. I realized that all of my opinions and perceptions had changed based on my own emotional state, and that it was not cohesive to allow that cycle to continue. 
I totally understand why you feel the way you do- and I respect your opinions and perceptions as they are. That does not mean that I will accept as fact, many (or any) of your sourceless assertions, just because you WANT so badly for me to do such a thing. I also do not rely on popular opinion, as if it is factual. 

I do not believe in ghosts either. Popular opinion does this, erroneously. 

Another good example: To say "The rest of the world thinks that the sky is blue and that the clouds are white- And not believing that, then, is based on your own stupidity or ignorance." is actually erroneous, in and of itself. 

The sky only appears to be blue, but in reality, the sky is without pigment, so it cannot actually BE blue. Sometimes the sky is black and sometimes it is white or gray looking. The reason why the sky looks blue is because of the sun's rays reflecting light off of tiny molecules in the air, which bounce back up, creating the illusion that the sky is somehow a certain color. The more lacking we are of sunlight, the less of this color exists. 
It is like saying empirically that "The sky is blue"- but what shade? Obviously, this belief is a fallacy. 
The clouds are also not white or gray. They only LOOK that way, because the clouds are really a group of condensed water molecules. That water has the sun beating on it from top and bottom, (from the bottom, because of the reflection of rays off of molecules in the atmosphere) so the only color that can be seen is NO color at all. Just LIGHT. The "heavier" the molecules become, the grayer they get to looking, from way below them- however, if you flew an airplane through a "gray" cloud, you would see that it is not gray at all. They only look gray sometimes, because the heavier they get, the more water cannot be reached with LIGHT, causing a dimming effect to lightness of the cloud. =)

Facts are useful. Just thought I would share another example of why popular opinion is not my favorite means of establishing truth from fiction. 

Happy 2010!!! =)


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 31, 2009)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > If they did, then you would be able to count them during a census. They can not be counted, because they do not have any entitlement to be counted, because they are not entitled to the oxygen in their bodies. That oxygen support can stop at any given time, therefore it is NOT an entitlement or a right.
> ...



Actually, illegals are not entitled to 14th Amendment rights, so your argument is moot. Moving on... 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Being a libertarian, I support rights to all individuals, no matter what their race, gender, religious views, sexual preference, or disabled/ indigent status. A fetus is not an indigent, though- one must be an individual (countable in a census) to have "status" as an indigent, etc. Status means it also must have STANDING, which is an absolute and total impossibility, being that the fetus can NOT be represented as a plaintiff without remaining inside of the mother's uterus, which would CLEARLY be located on the defendant's side of the courtroom, because it would be FORCED TO REMAIN WITHIN THE DEFENDANT, who could very well have a heart attack and die during the "fetal rights and entitlements" proceedings, for all anyone knows.
> ...



Oh how ridiculous you are, with all of your little semantic games. A person who is encased in concrete, is not STUCK anywhere. Someone else can, maybe with some difficulty, relieve them from being encased. This is not so with fetuses, so this argument is again, moot.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 31, 2009)

Misty said:


> Women should have the right to have an abortion but should be required to watch a sonogram of an abortion being performed before having one



What if they're blind?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Actually, neurological development begins at conception,




Maybe with those dog-woman hybrids of yours 


> For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work.










Point out the cortex...



> the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic




How to Use There, Their and They're - wikiHow

Did you just imply that a baby is an organ of your body?


> I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on my tummy, using a simple pulley system, and laying down.


I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on a 3-month old baby, using a simple pulley system, and laying down.

I could always just DROP some 15 or 50 pound weights on an old woman's head, using a simple pulley system, and laying down. W




> and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely


Every city I've been in in the US, there were places to get free BC and prophylactics.


> Fuck off. The only ignorant and intolerant person here is you.






> Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!


Clearly, you skipped English class as well...

What classes DID you go to?


> A sperm and an egg are HUMAN, growing, and mobile





> A tumor is HUMAN,


human (adj) =/= human (n)


> I am extremely closed minded on this issue


Taken alone, this fragment is true.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...









> Oh how ridiculous you are, with all of your little semantic games.






> A person who is encased in concrete, is not STUCK anywhere. Someone else can, maybe with some difficulty, relieve them from being encased. This is not so with fetuses



in theory, it is


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD,, why does your sig contain a link flagged by WoT?


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 31, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858615 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, neurological development begins at conception,
> ...



I saw that after I posted. Go jump off a cliff, idiot. I misuse ONE word, and suddenly you want to ad hominem me as if it is a consistent issue within my posts. Whatever. 



> Did you just imply that a baby is an organ of your body?
> I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on a 3-month old baby, using a simple pulley system, and laying down.
> 
> I could always just DROP some 15 or 50 pound weights on an old woman's head, using a simple pulley system, and laying down. W



Dipshit. Nobody said that. I can do what I want with my body, and you just don't like it. Oh stinking well. Sucks to be you. 


> Every city I've been in in the US, there were places to get free BC and prophylactics.



City. Not all people live in a city, or have access to transportation to the health department. Even some who have access to the transportation, cannot use it, because they have other people in their lives who are controlling them. 
Also, those condoms that are furnished to those who are in the know, were generally shipped in hot box trucks, which compromises the integrity of the latex. Condommania sends them to a mailbox, where they sit for hours, again, utilizing an unsafe storage procedure, and damaging the quality of the latex. Prove me fucking wrong, or be welcomed back to my ignore list. 



> Clearly, you skipped English class as well...



The person I was speaking to was the one who used those words in that format- which is the only reason why I used them that way. It's called sarcasm.




> > A tumor is HUMAN,
> 
> 
> human (adj) =/= human (n)



Fetus =/= human (n)
Fetus = human (adj)




> > I am extremely closed minded on this issue
> 
> 
> Taken alone, this fragment is true.



*No Family. ~A15*  Forget the warning. You are ignored.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic






JD_2B said:


> Go jump off a cliff, idiot. I misuse ONE word, and suddenly you want to ad hominem  me as if it is a consistent issue within my posts. Whatever.
> .


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858615 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> Fetus =/= human (n)
> Fetus = human (adj)





Sorry, toots, but those are not equivalent terms.

*Noun*



S: (n) homo, man, human being, *human* (any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage)
*Adjective*



S: (adj) *human* (characteristic of humanity) _"human nature"_
S: (adj) *human* (relating to a person) _"the experiment was conducted on 6 monkeys and 2 human subjects"_
S: (adj) *human* (having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings) _"human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty"_

*Noun*

S: (n) *fetus*, foetus (an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal) 

So we've established in this thread that you skipped English, Sex Ed, and Biology.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 31, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858060 said:
			
		

> does the number 3/5 mean anything to you?



How is the fact that slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person when deciding representative count possibly relevant to this discussion? Or do you have a link saying fetuses are legally 3/5 of a person?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858060 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




JD implied that if a being is not counted as one member during a cenus, it is not human,.

Basically, she argued:


> If human -> Counted during census as one person
> 
> !counted as one person in census--> not human



Another poster used illegals as an example. I used the 3/5 clause.


----------



## Father Time (Dec 31, 2009)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858692 said:
			
		

> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858060 said:
> ...



Oh ok, I'd just try tourists.


----------



## JD_2B (Dec 31, 2009)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1858692 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways. 

Also, 3/5 was the amount of legal standing a slave had, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has. Plus, the argument about legal standing was the fact that the fetus is inside of the mother, so for the fetus to go up against the mother as some sort of legal battle involving it's entitlements to her, would force the fetus to be on whichever side that the mother is actually on, physically, and without any recourse to that requirement. The fetus does not have standing, because the fetus is not a person, because it is not an individual, because it is not divided from the human it is inside of, because it is not born or alive. 

Any perceived rights awarded to a fetus would be barred by the consideration of the fact that the woman could die in a car wreck, or any number of other accidental injuries or ailments that may occur to her, thereby affecting the fetus' growth, development, or capability of ever being born, and even possibly obliterating the chances of that ever happening. 

I wish that someone here who was so adamantly against abortion would at least try to come up with an argument that even attempts to discredit these facts, without the ridiculous usage of semantics and personal attacks. Personal attacks are never facts. 

Happy New year, all.. Going outside with my boy to shoot off some fireworks! Talk to ya next year!! =)


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Dec 31, 2009)

JD_2B said:


> A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways.



Says you.

Human being = any being that is human

fetus = a being that is human

fetus = a human being





> Also, 3/5 was the amount of legal standing a slave had, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has.


So, in your world the hierarchy goes

Women
White men
Black men
children (3+)
Toddlers/infants
animals
unborn children/children not yet breathing/children attached by the umbilical cord.

?


> ad, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has. Plus, the argument about legal standing was the fact that the fetus is inside of the mother, so for the fetus to go up against the mother as some sort of legal battle involving it's entitlements to her, would force the fetus to be on whichever side that the mother is actually on, physically, and without any recourse to that requirement. The fetus does not have standing



So conjoined twins are not human?



> it is not born or alive.



We already went over this. You said the same thing 15 or twenty pages ago and it was shot down.

Repetition does not make a false statement true.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 1, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1859039 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > A fetus doesn't count as one, ever, so the whole argument is completely moot anyways.
> ...



You define a fetus as a being. That is one thing it is not. Thus, it cannot be construed as being a human being. 

In any event.. To be or not to be. That is the woman's decision for the content of her uterus, no matter how you choose to define such a defective word, as "be", in conjugation as a present tense adjective of what TYPE of human this fetus is. It is not presently being anything of value, if the woman does not value it, which means that regardless of whether she uses a doctor or not, she can very easily choose to get rid of it, or make a choice that rids her of it.



> > Also, 3/5 was the amount of legal standing a slave had, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has.
> 
> 
> So, in your world the hierarchy goes
> ...



No- animals and fetuses would be on the same level- And I truly do not know why you are pulling this race card. I am anything but racist or prejudice, and your conclusion that I am is only more proof that you do not use logical thought when you respond. You just react according to whatever your extreme feelings are about some fact that someone posted. 



> > ad, which was a hell of a lot more than a fetus ever has. Plus, the argument about legal standing was the fact that the fetus is inside of the mother, so for the fetus to go up against the mother as some sort of legal battle involving it's entitlements to her, would force the fetus to be on whichever side that the mother is actually on, physically, and without any recourse to that requirement. The fetus does not have standing
> 
> 
> So conjoined twins are not human?


Conjoined twins are human beings once they are born.  Having to stand on one side or another, in a courtroom, for conjoined twins who are contesting being, say, split apart- does not have any relevance to this discussion and is a moot point, because both twins can confer with their representatives with the other one's ears covered. A fetus cannot do this. 



> > it is not born or alive.
> 
> 
> We already went over this. You said the same thing 15 or twenty pages ago and it was shot down.


No it wasn't. It was appealed to, using various emotional conclusions which were not based on factual evidence or linear thought processes, even. This shoots nothing down, it only frustrates the other debater, causing them to not want to continue attempting to hold an intelligent dialogue, because clearly the other person involved is claiming to have all the facts, and in fact, having none. 



> Repetition does not make a false statement true.


It sure as hell doesn't, now does it. However, in your case, it seems that one must waste a lot of energy repeating themselves, just to defend your consistent personal ad hominem attacks, all because you cannot support your own assertions with fact. 
Boo hoo.. Stop being such a crybaby.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 1, 2010)

aaaaarrg.  My last post never showed up for some reason.  Many pages lost 



> PROVE that is is CONSCIOUS, and not merely having neurological REFLEXES. Having a REFLEX does not make one conscious. As such, it does not make one sentient.
> Having a reflex WILL cause the brain to activate. Of course it will. Our ability to SEE that the brain caused a reflex does not mean that the organism is conscious of that activity.


I belive that I addressed this already but here it is
The reason I cannot agree that pros assertion of when brain activity develops into sentence is because it is inherently and measurably random akin to muscle twitches in an adult.  This is not consciousness.  Later, the brain becomes organized and able to _react_ to stimuli.  THAT is a sign of consciousness and fairly decisive one at that.  You brushed aside the evidence I brought fourth with NO evidence of your own, that is the emotional response you claim you have overcome.  

    It boils down to this: Me, bern and pro argue that the life of a child outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced or uncomfortable during the pregnancy term.  You believe the mothers right outweighs the childs.  It is that simple.  I have no idea why you continue to make this argument that the child is not conscious before it take a breath as I cannot even find a left wing loony site to support that insane claim.  Instead, you should at least concede that point and sot on your autonomy throne.  



> pro
> When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.


Sorry I came back to this so late but JD drowned everything out.  I cant even find my original post which had three references to fetal brain development.  Basically they stated that the brain developed early in week 6 but most agree that the brain is not fully functional and activity is akin to random muscle twitches.  Here are some more that I found:

Medical statements on fetal sensing of pain  --  On fetal pain.  Seems there are the proper connections AND reactions at 20-24 weeks

http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf  --  Suggest that the brain is sufficiently developed to learn and experience the world they are in at 30 weeks.  It also states this development _begins_ at 6 to 7 weeks but does not assert it is fully complex enough at that point.  It also gives the opposing view.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie  Not much info as you have to pay to access medical journals but it does put a bottom of 18-25 weeks for a floor and 30 for a likely time that sentience develops.

All the papers I have read seem to say the same thing; sentience is possible at 20 weeks and likely at 30.  Hence, first trimester only and I would even be willing to go to month four but I believe that should be the upper limit as the higher brain functions begin to make the necessary connections between the separate parts of the brain to form a consciousness mind.

My original post also included a sound study where fetuses were recorded to react to music played on the mothers stomach and not react to music played for the mother herself.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 1, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You define a fetus as a being. That is one thing it is not.




Fail.



S: (n) *being*, beingness, existence (the state or fact of existing) _"a point of view gradually coming into being"; "laws in existence for centuries"_
S: (n) organism, *being* (a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently)
WordNet Search - 3.0





> In any event.. To be or not to be. That is the woman's decision for the content of her uterus, no matter how you choose to define such a defective word, as "be", in conjugation as a present tense adjective of what TYPE of human this fetus is.[/QUOTE]
> 
> So you now admit that we're speaking about a human? That you change your position so many times is evidence that you're making it up as you go along.
> 
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 1, 2010)

FA, i will read your posts later, when I have time to do so, and respond once I have done so.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 1, 2010)

FA, your last link is to an error page.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 1, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> aaaaarrg.  My last post never showed up for some reason.  Many pages lost
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We will see if that is true, below. Thank you for the links. 



> It boils down to this: Me, bern and pro argue that the life of a child outweighs the right of the mother to not be inconvenienced or uncomfortable during the pregnancy term.



But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?



> You believe the mothers right outweighs the childs.  It is that simple.  I have no idea why you continue to make this argument that the child is not conscious before it take a breath as I cannot even find a left wing loony site to support that insane claim.  Instead, you should at least concede that point and sot on your autonomy throne.



I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.



> > pro
> > When another user asserted that a later point in time would be more in accordance with the available evidence, I simply asked for the poster's source so I could consider the poster's information. Such was not posted to my knowledge.
> 
> 
> ...



LMAO!! A link to "religious tolerance". Could you find me anything more biased than this, so that I can continue ROTFLMAO!!!!

Ever heard of the "silent scream" abortion video? Well, there are people amongst you who believe that the 8 week gestated embryo is actually showing obvious signs of having a "developed brain", and that the open mouth mechanism going on during the abortion, goes hand in hand with all the jerking around. These are not RANDOM twitches. These are pain responses. I believe that. Fetuses can feel as early as 6 weeks into gestation. What a bunch of doctors are quoted saying on religious tolerance means absolutely zilch to me. All that is, is a bunch of people giving you their perspective on the random twitching, and actual reflexes of the embryo and fetus, and talking you into believing that just because they have reflexes, then those actions are not random. 
Religious Tolerance is not a medical journal, and will NOT tell you that the fetus does not understand pain. All you are seeing and hearing about is a brain and body connection which shows that the brain is functional and that it is working properly. It does not mean that having a reflex is the same as a voluntary movement. Even yawning and stretching, thumb sucking, etc- are not voluntary movements, contrary to what you have been fooled into thinking. 

My sources:




> White, Lois. Foundations Of Maternal & Pediatric Nursing, pages 10 and 128 (2004): "By the end of the 12th week, skeletal muscles begin involuntary movements....The newborn may cry and have muscular activity when cold, but there is no voluntary control of muscular activity."
> 
> ^ _*a*_ _*b*_ Becher, Julie-Claire. "Insights into Early Fetal Development", _Behind the Medical Headlines_ (Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh and Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow October 2004): "Purposive movement depends on brain maturation. This begins at about 18 weeks' gestation and progressively replaces reflex movements, which disappear by about 8 months after birth....Reflexes are very different from purposeful voluntary movements which develop during the first year of life."



So you see, purposeful movements are voluntary, and they do NOT happen until after the baby is born, and OUTSIDE of the woman. Voluntary movements would be scientifically disastrous for the mother, especially during child birth. Child birth results in pain, for both the mother and fetus, whose head actually gets squished and reduced in size by the birth canal. This is the reason why born babies have "soft spots" on their heads. The cranium does no fully fissure itself together until AFTER birth, because the skull portions must be squeezed out, as one head. Very painful, indeed. The shoulders are the next big portion to push through, but because the human body contains joints, and the fetal body has very little muscle, then the shoulders get pushed out fairly easily. If a fetus could make purposeful voluntary movements, then this could mean very bad things for the mother throughout the time frame in which purposeful, voluntary movements existed (again, they do not exist) including displacement of the placenta or umbilical cord, fetal movements tearing the uterus, and the fetus placing itself in a breech position, voluntarily. That makes no sense whatsoever. 



> http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn094.pdf -- Suggest that the brain is sufficiently developed to learn and experience the world they are in at 30 weeks. It also states this development _begins_ at 6 to 7 weeks but does not assert it is fully complex enough at that point.  It also gives the opposing view.



This article notes:

The way in which fetal nerve cells work (in terms of neurotransmitter
and receptor function) is also quite different. Also feedback
mechanisms to dampen response do not develop fully until after
birth.

Also, the remainder of this "newsletter" is merely a back and forth on differentiating opinions on whether it takes a "fully developed" brain to have function (this is in the words of the newsletter author- clearly pro lifers, as they are the only "organizations" involved in spreading this kind of rhetoric) Heres a funny video:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD97OVJ4PNw[/ame]

That is also more proof that these anti abortion protesters are completely driven by an emotional response to pictures of aborted fetuses, many of which are not real in the first place. 

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/ref/10.3109/14767059209161911?cookieSet=1


> An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie  Not much info as you have to pay to access medical journals but it does put a bottom of 18-25 weeks for a floor and 30 for a likely time that sentience develops.



*An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie*


Either Moot.. Or some kind of virus. Thanks.. ?



> All the papers I have read seem to say the same thing; sentience is possible at 20 weeks and likely at 30.  Hence, first trimester only and I would even be willing to go to month four but I believe that should be the upper limit as the higher brain functions begin to make the necessary connections between the separate parts of the brain to form a consciousness mind.



The only way of being able to even claim that is based on fetal pain reaction, which does not indicate sentience or consciousness. And if fetal pain is the issue, and the doctor or patient feels strongly about it, then the fetus can be given anesthesia, before the abortion takes place. No problem. 



> My original post also included a sound study where fetuses were recorded to react to music played on the mothers stomach and not react to music played for the mother herself.



And that study was inconclusive, as it stated itself, claiming that they did not have adequate technology to make an accurate conclusion about it. 

Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 1, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.



Again oh logical one. You need to consider the other beliefs your position requires. It would require that you believe the conciousness occurres at a specifics point in time, like a light switch being flipped from off to on. Further it would require that you believe conciousness occurs the second the head is out. Consiousness deals with the development of the mind, so tell us what happens in the mind in that brief period between being in the birth canal to being fully born. Is it logical to believe that two independent unrelated processes; 1) birthing and 2) reaching full concsiousness occurr at the exact same time all the time?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 1, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.




Could it be effected by being in the blast zone of a MOAB?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe it is conscious, before birth or during. I do understand that it has a functional brain, and is capable of having reflexes and even remembering. That is not the same thing as being conscious. YOU want to say that having a functioning brain that causes reflexes makes a thing conscious. I respectfully disagree, because you know and I know that having brain activity and the ability to reflex is not the equivalent to consciousness, in any born human. It should not, then, be applied to a fetus.
> ...



I do believe this. I believe that the moment the baby breathes its own air, it becomes alive, and is henceforth considered an individual. If this belief was so inaccurate, then why is it the legal standard?



> Further it would require that you believe conciousness occurs the second the head is out.


This I do not believe. The head being out does not equate to the baby breathing it's own air, and therefore does not equate to the baby achieving consciousness. Breathing is involuntary- and all involuntary physical capacity must be fulfilled before the baby becomes a living being, capable of voluntary thought/ sentience. 



> Consiousness deals with the development of the mind,


No.. Neurology deals with the development of the brain. Consciousness is simply the state of awareness. Furthermore:
Mind - Definition

Using the term "mind", relates very closely to a fetus being capable of reasoning. Can you prove that a fetus can reason?
Also:

*[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]neu·rol·o·gy[/SIZE][/FONT]* 

  (n
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





-r
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




l
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	







-j
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, ny
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




-) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE] 

[SIZE=-1]*NOUN:*[/SIZE]
  The medical science that deals with the nervous system and disorders affecting it.

*[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]con·scious[/SIZE][/FONT]* 

  (k
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




n
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




sh
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




s) [SIZE=-2]KEY[/SIZE] 

[SIZE=-1]*ADJECTIVE:*[/SIZE]



 Having an awareness of one's environment and one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts. See Synonyms at aware.
 Mentally perceptive or alert; awake: _The patient remained fully conscious after the local anesthetic was administered._
 
 Capable of thought, will, or perception: _the development of conscious life on the planet._
 Subjectively known or felt: _conscious remorse._
 Intentionally conceived or done; deliberate: _a conscious insult; made a conscious effort to speak more clearly._
 Inwardly attentive or sensible; mindful: _was increasingly conscious of being watched._
 Especially aware of or preoccupied with. Often used in combination: _a cost-conscious approach to further development; a health-conscious diet._
 [SIZE=-1]*NOUN:*[/SIZE]
  In psychoanalysis, the component of waking awareness perceptible by a person at any given instant; consciousness.*[FONT=arial,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]ETYMOLOGY:[/SIZE][/FONT]*
From Latin c
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




nscius :  com-, _com-_ +  sc
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




re, _to know_; see skei- in Indo-European roots






> so tell us what happens in the mind in that brief period between being in the birth canal to being fully born.


Until it breathes, the fetus is pushed by the woman, to get it out. Also there are contractions. During this time, the only oxygen received by the fetus is through the umbilical vein, and the used blood is returned to the woman via the two umbilical arteries. 
Actually, full fledged consciousness may not actually begin for a full five minutes following initial breathing, if the umbilical cord cannot be cut in time. See it takes five minutes for the veins to collapse and stop circulating in the infant, after birth, if the umbilical cord is not cut. Regardless of whether babies in this instance are fully cognitive or not until five minutes after birth, we still consider them to be living beings, based on the fact that they are now, for all rational, legal, and scientific purposes, generally self sustaining individuals, as the umbilical cord CAN be cut, if there was any issue, and the baby CAN get artificial ventilation if needed. 
During the birthing process, the fetus can actually not survive, if the umbilical cord becomes faulty, or if any number of complications occur, and without affecting the mother, however slightly, it is not possible to treat the fetus as a separate entity. 
Sentience in and of itself is something that the fetus has been gestating and developing the neurological connections it needs in order to achieve live birth and sentience.. But, like a six month old baby who could not hold it's bottle one day, and could do it the next day, or the 14 month old who could not walk one day, but walked the following day- gestation is similar. It is in preparation for LIFE. A 5 month old baby can touch the bottle, as a reflexive reaction, and cry because it knows it is uncomfortable. Holding the bottle is a voluntary response, and also happens virtually overnight. Crying may be considered communicating, also, but it is really not the same. "First Words", are also not communicating. Usually they are "da-da" or some other nonsensical (although voluntary) verbalization that is merely a repetition of what they heard others say, like in the cases of talking birds. Also, pointing at "da-da" and saying "daddy" or "da-da" is a great way to condition the child's memory that pointing at a male (this can happen with any male that even looks like dad, much akin to newborns who root at the breasts of women who are not their mothers, and often times the chests of men who are also not their mothers.) in order to cause it to say Da Da when it sees that male. The baby has no clue what a da da is, only that this male is someone who is present. If the male is not active in his life, then by all definitions of how a baby learns to think about fathers, the word could be used towards any number of males, who are also only very infrequent caretakers in the infant's life, as well. I used to babysit this little girl between the ages of 2 and 5, whose daddy had a dark beard. A full beard, I should specify. Well, when she saw any man on TV with the same beard, she would point to him and say "Daddy!!!", and when she looked at the pictures in this cartoon book we would read, she would see a drawing of a guy with a black beard, and shriek with joy "Daddy!!".. Not that this story has any relevance to this debate, lol- because the little girl knew something about her daddy (who I suspect was somewhat absent from her life, even though he lived with his wife and children), so claiming that she was not aware of her dad would be irrational also. 

 I digress.. Just because something CAN be sentient, does not mean that it IS, no matter how much you want to assume such a thing. When my son was a baby, he used to "root" for milk, on my boyfriend's chest. We got a big kick out of it. My son was clearly sentient, though. He knew he was hungry, and he actively looked for nourishment. (even when he just cried, he was still sentient.. but the crying was an involuntary response to the discomfort of colic that he probably did not understand himself, because I could feed him, which would make him quiet during the time he had the bottle, change him, which would calm him while he was getting the fresh diaper on, burp him, which he enjoyed more than less, hold him, which he loved, etc, and he would still cry. He clearly did not understand his own discomfort or he would have continued to cry even while I was changing his diapers and feeding him, holding him, etc.- So anyways, there was obviously some kind of sentience going on, because he calmed down and then got upset again, but even for a 4 month old baby, this consciousness is hardly something that one could be so quick to claim as being capable of processing and understanding discomfort!) 
 Oh and I am not saying that infants are not people, either, so please do not verbally attack me with a slew of ad hominems in response to the facts I have presented to you. I am sick of you and your homeys treating me like a sicko wicked "pro death" bitch just because I don't agree that fetuses are people, so that is going to come to a screeching halt, here and now, if you please. 



> Is it logical to believe that two independent unrelated processes; 1) birthing and 2) reaching full concsiousness occurr at the exact same time all the time?


I do not believe that born infants have full consciousness, either. Actually, until the baby hits their first birthday, they generally do not even have a full grown brain. 
I also find it completely irrational to think that a fetus can make voluntary movements in the uterus, because this would cause a major hazard to it's chances of growing to the point of maturing enough to reach the stage of full term live birth. You want to say that fetuses can make conscious, voluntary movements while they are living inside of a person's body, and that, my friend, is just not sensible at all. It's not even logical.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 1, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 1, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Not necessarily. They develop brain activity, through brain development, and the potential for acquiring consciousness. Actually, neurological development begins at conception, which means that the brain grows. For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work. Just because the brain WORKS, does not mean that a state of consciousness is present, as well.
> Like I said- PROVE otherwise. Basic Logic should tell you that Brain Activity and consciousness are not one and the same.



Where did I EVER contend that brain activity equals conciousness? Again it is you are presuming things, not me. I am well aware that brain activity occurrs before actual conciousness. My contention is simply that to believe that that specific aspect of brain activity occurs within mere seconds and happens to also coincide with be birthed (hence why you would have to believe it does occur within mere seconds) is highly illogical and unlikely. I still don't believe you understand the beliefs required of your position so I'm gonna lay out simply what it sounds to me like you believe and you can correct me if I'm wrong, then point out what those beliefs require

1) You believe abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason.

2)You believe a baby only has conciousness after being birthed.




JD_2B said:


> I also have reason to believe that your own beliefs stem more from an emotional perspective, based on the vagueness of your posts, your refusal to show me anything of evidential merit, that a fetus can think, or have cognition, and the most obvious- the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic, using symbolism rather than concrete fact, to come to that conclusion. To figure out why and how you came to your conclusion, you are using backwards logic, aka induction, to find the root of your answers.



That would be wishful thinking on your part. I don't know what else to tell you other than  you're simply going to have to take my word that emotion has very little to do with my opinion on abortion. 



JD_2B said:


> You KNOW that just as a 9 month fetus has a full brain, which shows far more function than an 8 month fetus has, and a LOT more that we can SEE happening than in an embryo. You also KNOW that "see it to believe it" is an illogical way of thinking, but you have a hard time believing that any zygote or fetus is capable of thought, or brain function, because it cannot be measured or seen by YOU, or science as a whole, at least not as of yet. That is a fact based pattern of reasoning, but it is not deductive, it is inductive, and conditional reasoning. Conditional meaning that in your personal opinion, since born infants have the ability to think, then fetuses do too. There is no actual evidence to support this, empirical or otherwise, and thus it is simply just YOU making an observation, coming to a conclusion, and then trying to explain that conclusion, and justify it. THAT is why it is illogical.



Wrong on every count. Again all I contend is that it is illogical to believe that conciousness occurs no earlier than immediately before the child is born and is fully concioous immediately after. What I ask is that you forget for a moment what you think you know to answer a hypothetical question to get this debate on footing such that we understand each other. Again forget what you think you know; If you KNEW that a baby had consciousness prior to birth at some point in the developmental cycle, would change your position that abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason? 






JD_2B said:


> I am debating certain specific points of development with several people on here, so excuse me for saying so- but what was your stance again?
> I ask, because if you feel that abortion is okay in the first trimester, and yet wish to assert that second and third trimester abortions should be illegal, or you argue that it is okay up to a certain week, etc- Then specify which week of gestation that is, and what happened in the minute between the second trimester and the first, or the second time frame in which you deem abortion as being immoral and the first, in which you deem it moral. Or maybe you don't agree with abortion whatsoever.. There are at least 6 people on here who I have been discussing this with, so forgive me, but message boards are highly impersonal, and I do not remember your particular stance. Explain that, though, please, if you will. =)



Again my belief is pretty simple. I don't know specifically when conciousness occurs in the developmental cycle. You are the only one that has claimed to know this so far, albeit only as an implicit part of your position. What I am fairly confident in and what is grounded in logic and evidence is that a baby achieves concsiousness at some point while still in the womb. I believe 





JD_2B said:


> Again, murder is a legal term, and emptying an organ that is within my body is not criminal, nor should it be.
> I do not think that recognizing the fact that my UTERUS is MINE, to do with as I wish, is some kind of a warped view.  I do think that YOUR feeling that government can and should have the right to turn an bodily organ, that may or may not work, within a body, which may or may not continue to function for another 9 months, into some kind of mandatory baby oven, is not exactly being brutally honest about what you are even proposing. It is MY uterus, and whether I do or do not want anything in it, I am allowed to make the choice of disposal, or full term gestation, at my sole discretion. Like I said many times before, this will ALWAYS be at my own discretion. I can take a belly flop off of a high dive, if I want, even if the government wrote some law saying I should not have that kind of right. I can "accidentally" put too much paprika in my food, or overdo it on Vitamin C, as well. I can ask a friend to whack my belly a few times with a bat, if I want to. If that is an option that I am afraid of taking, because it could hurt- I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on my tummy, using a simple pulley system, and laying down. What can the government do? Not much. That is autonomy, in a nutshell, like it or not.



Sure you have the option to do all of those things. But more and more it sounding like you don't really care whether or not a baby is considered a human being or not. That is what I am trying to figure out. Because if you don't, that is if your position on when abortion should be allowed doesn't change if, for argument's sake, you KNEW that a baby was a human being, a big chunk of this debate about concsiousness, sentients and all of that is irrelevant. 










JD_2B said:


> <sigh> Read the whole thread, please. I have already covered this a few times. The mother is not responsible for the baby, physically, after it is born. The father can feed it, other women can nurse it (it happens ALL OVER THE WORLD THIS WAY, by the way) and other people can take 24/7 responsibility for it. Being responsible for a child is not physiological, it is sociological. Make the difference clear to yourself, please. Choosing not to take care of one's child is generally not neglect. There are safe baby drops, friends, family, and child care providers out there that are all sociologically responsible for babies. Next...



Do you understand the difference between responsibility and dependance. The later is what I am arguing. I did not say that the mother is just as responsible for her baby pre-birth as she is after. I said their is very little difference between the dependance a child has on the mother pre-birth and the dependance it has on the rest of the world to take care of it after birth. In terms of it's ability to take care of itself, by itself. Very little, arguably nothing, has changed.



JD_2B said:


> Women are just as innocent as the contents of their uterine walls are. Why should the fetus get some entitlement to remain there, above and beyond the woman's entitlement to not have to go through with a nine month pregnancy and birthing process?
> Remember- you have to be aware of your own assertions, and the lack of logic that you put into them. It is entirely illogical to say that one innocent life should not trump another innocent life, but you yourself are arguing that the fetus should have rights, which would mean that it's rights should trump those of the mother. Please explain.



I don't look at really as what rights woman does or doesn't have to here uterus. The argument I beileve that overrides that is where is the point that it is okay to make another life suffer the consequences of your lack of responsibility/poor judgement? 






JD_2B said:


> Sure- but to err is human. To be allergic to hormonal birth control is not uncommon.. and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely. Hence, the whole health care reform debate, when it comes to including birth control options. Please be aware that not everyone has access or knowledge, even, of basic sex ed. The lady that brought me for my abortion, told me a couple of funny stories of how uneducated some of the people she had met were. She was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, and we worked at the same command. One story was about a young lady (in the USN) from Tennessee, who had never heard of birth control, and when asked how babies are made, answered "Well, both people have to close their eyes really tight, cross their fingers, and wish for it, of course!!"
> Another gal, slept in the rack just above this corpsman's bed, and my friend would wake up in the morning with actual RAGS, dangling from the bed rails. These rags were being used to absorb menstrual blood. They were hanging there to dry, for reuse later. She gave the young lady (another one from the hills of TN) some feminine hygiene pads. The next morning, the pads were stuck to the side of the rack, all washed up, and ready to be reused.
> Of course, not everyone who experiences an unwanted pregnancy is so uneducated. Even Doctors experience them, sometimes. Condoms are only listed as being 85% effective, with perfect storage and use, and these are frequently misused, or delivered in very hot box trucks, where their integrity is compromised. Those jellies also are only about 80-85% effective, and again, that is with perfect use. Some of them, you have to wait 15 minutes to use them.
> Many people also think that "withdrawal" is an effective method of birth control, and do not understand or know that pre-ejaculate happens before the male orgasms, which can cause pregnancy. Even if a man ejaculates on the OUTSIDE of the vagina, and even one little drop of sperm gets on the vaginal lips, the "labia major", even- the woman can get pregnant.
> Pregnancy does NOT always happen by consent- You can take that to the bank.



Consent is not the point. Of course I believe a woman has the right to prevent being pregnant. My point is that unless you are extremely ignorant of human biology, you know that if a man has ejaculated in you or even close to in you, consensual or otherwise, there is the possibility that you could be pregnant. Further women have several options well before the second trimester to prevent pregnancy and find out if they are pregnant.   




JD_2B said:


> ?????????????? You make no fucking sense.  Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!



Yeah what prolet said. I'm not sure how much more basic I can make it for you. You response to my definition is the equivalent of saying that ANY thing defined as a person is either a chairperson, or spokesperson, salesperson, etc. All of those things are persons, but not all persons are those things. Clear enough for ya?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily. They develop brain activity, through brain development, and the potential for acquiring consciousness. Actually, neurological development begins at conception, which means that the brain grows. For anything to grow in size, their must be some neurological processes at work, meaning that there is brain activity at work. Just because the brain WORKS, does not mean that a state of consciousness is present, as well.
> ...



Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being. 




> 2)You believe a baby only has conciousness after being birthed.



Yes, that is true. I believe that the building blocks to attaining consciousness are present prior to birth, prior to the fetus completing all of the necessary prerequisites required of involuntary bodily function, before it can achieve sentience. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I also have reason to believe that your own beliefs stem more from an emotional perspective, based on the vagueness of your posts, your refusal to show me anything of evidential merit, that a fetus can think, or have cognition, and the most obvious- the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic, using symbolism rather than concrete fact, to come to that conclusion. To figure out why and how you came to your conclusion, you are using backwards logic, aka induction, to find the root of your answers.
> ...



OK





> Wrong on every count. Again all I contend is that it is illogical to believe that conciousness occurs no earlier than immediately before the child is born and is fully concioous immediately after. What I ask is that you forget for a moment what you think you know to answer a hypothetical question to get this debate on footing such that we understand each other. Again forget what you think you know; If you KNEW that a baby had consciousness prior to birth at some point in the developmental cycle, would change your position that abortion should be allowed at any time for any reason?



As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned. 



> Again my belief is pretty simple. I don't know specifically when conciousness occurs in the developmental cycle. You are the only one that has claimed to know this so far, albeit only as an implicit part of your position. What I am fairly confident in and what is grounded in logic and evidence is that a baby achieves concsiousness at some point while still in the womb. I believe



??

I think that there is no logical reason to believe that a fetus can process and reason and understand ANYTHING, or that it can make voluntary movements, which would be hazardous to not only itself, but the woman who is carrying it. This can only logically happen when it is born. 




> Sure you have the option to do all of those things. But more and more it sounding like you don't really care whether or not a baby is considered a human being or not. That is what I am trying to figure out. Because if you don't, that is if your position on when abortion should be allowed doesn't change if, for argument's sake, you KNEW that a baby was a human being, a big chunk of this debate about concsiousness, sentients and all of that is irrelevant.



Actually, as usual, you really undermine my position when you say things like that. Your perception of my position on abortion is very different than what kind of a moral compass I have, personally, but you have arbitrarily decided that you will mesh the two together. You also discount my personal opinions on late term abortion, and mesh them together with my legal opinions on it. Clearly, all of this is very emotional for you..  But since you refuse to admit that- allow me to clear a few things up please. 

Personally- I don't think women should abort past the first trimester. My reasons for this have nothing to do with sentience, or anything you might try to personally decide my opinion on this is based on. I simply think that it is more dangerous to have a late term abortion than it is to have one in the first 4 months. (and yes I think that the 4th month should be within the time frame for abortion on demand, legally, too)

Legally- I do not think that women should be imprisoned for having and executing full autonomy of their bodies, no matter what phase of the pregnancy they are in. What kind of punishment should a woman who aborts in the second or third trimester get, if this was done illegally?



> Do you understand the difference between responsibility and dependance. The later is what I am arguing. I did not say that the mother is just as responsible for her baby pre-birth as she is after. I said their is very little difference between the dependance a child has on the mother pre-birth and the dependance it has on the rest of the world to take care of it after birth. In terms of it's ability to take care of itself, by itself. Very little, arguably nothing, has changed.



So now, you are changing your argument about dependence on the mother, regarding her responsibility (which, by the way, I responded to in a very civil way, and was practically burned at the stake for saying that being responsible for a baby is societal, and not necessarily the mother's responsibility).
And yes- the dependence on the world's society to be available to care for it and such, is far different from it's dependence on the mother to be ALIVE, HEALTHY AND UNHARMED, in order for it to grow. Society may have a hundred people caring for that baby, who can all get sick and die, while they are caring for that baby, but the baby will not die, also. This is not so with the woman carrying a ZEF. You HAVE to admit that to yourself. It is MUCH MUCH DIFFERENT. 



> *I don't look at really as what rights woman does or doesn't have to here uterus. The argument I beileve that overrides that is where is the point that it is okay to make another life suffer the consequences of your lack of responsibility/poor judgement? *



You are unbelievable. Instead of giving a rational response, you again resort to factless emotional rhetoric, and abusive language that suggests that all women who abort must immediately be "life takers", who have no sense of "responsibility", and use, exclusively "poor judgment". Thinly veiled attack. Not cool. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Sure- but to err is human. To be allergic to hormonal birth control is not uncommon.. and the inability to be able to pay for said birth control is another issue entirely. Hence, the whole health care reform debate, when it comes to including birth control options. Please be aware that not everyone has access or knowledge, even, of basic sex ed. The lady that brought me for my abortion, told me a couple of funny stories of how uneducated some of the people she had met were. She was a Hospital Corpsman in the Navy, and we worked at the same command. One story was about a young lady (in the USN) from Tennessee, who had never heard of birth control, and when asked how babies are made, answered "Well, both people have to close their eyes really tight, cross their fingers, and wish for it, of course!!"
> ...



Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > ?????????????? You make no fucking sense.  Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!
> ...



Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 1, 2010)

> pro
> FA, your last link is to an error page.



informahealthcare

The link still worked for me though.  Here it is again.



> But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?


And where did I make any exceptions?  Once again, I EXPLICITLY stated that I did not believe in any exceptions except imminent danger to life and I do not need to explain the obvious and already covered reasons why imminent danger is a reason to abort.  Its ability to feel pain and reflexes are not the point, the ability to process and attain a form of consciousness that is.  Those articles here and posted earlier show that the brain is sufficiently developed and active enough for that to occur and ignoring the data does not change that.  There are some people that hold a fetus is not conscious and the evidence used to prove that also proves that a child is not conscious up to a full year.  That IS pure lunacy and as of yet I have not seen ANYTHING that suggests a fetus is not a conscious being by week 30.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 1, 2010)

Again, your link is inconclusive, as stated here:

It is concluded that the basic neuronal substrate required to transmit somatosensory information develops by mid-gestation (18 to 25 weeks), however, the functional capacity of the neural circuitry is limited by the immaturity of the system. Thus, 18 to 25 weeks is considered the earliest stage at which the lower boundary of sentience could be placed. At this stage of development, however, there is little evidence for the central processing of somatosensory information. Before 30 weeks gestational age, EEG activity is extremely limited and somatosensory evoked potentials are immature, lacking components which correlate with information processing within the cerebral cortex. Thus, *30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.

*
Plausible does not mean "conclusive". Also, the 30th week is beyond the beginning of the third trimester, so even using a plausibility template, such as this, one cannot continue to want women criminalized for wanting abortions on demand any sooner than that week, if that desire is based on sentience. 


> But you make exceptions. How do you rationalize those exceptions as anything but emotive, when you yourself just admitted that as long as the fetus can have a reflex to pain, then the mother's discomfort and lifestyle means nothing to you? Why are the reflexes of the fetus more important to it's right to life, than the state it was in, just days before it was capable of reflexing that way?



And where did I make any exceptions? Once again, I EXPLICITLY stated that I did not believe in any exceptions *except* imminent danger to life and I do not need to explain the obvious and already covered reasons why imminent danger is a reason to abort. [/quote]

EXCEPT that the word EXCEPT is the root word for the term and functionality of the word "exception".  
Besides- "Imminent danger", at least in the world of third trimester abortionists, means "possible risk to death" and is a game of statistical risks to the mother. You invalidate my own statistical risks to the mother, based on her weight gain, and possibility of having a heart attack or gestational diabetes. When playing statistics, be sure that your own statistical risks are no less than 100%, especially when one claims that other statistical risks of death or serious injury are far less, because I guarantee you that 100% of women who have died of a heart attack or during childbirth, CAUSED by the condition of being pregnant, after seeking abortion services in a locale that does not allow or offer them, did still die. I can also guarantee you that 100% of women who have full term pregnancies die, also. Some die as a result of pregnancies, and the weight gain involved, which contributed to them getting cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. That statistic is a little bit difficult to argue with. So.. Go ahead and define "imminent danger", and try like hell to justify a woman dying from weight gain caused by multiple pregnancies, compared with her dying during the pregnancy.. Nothing is really nearly as imminent as you make it out to be, except for ectopic pregnancies, which can last for several weeks without treatment, as well. 



> Its ability to feel pain and reflexes are not the point, the ability to process and attain a form of consciousness that is. Those articles here and posted earlier show that the brain is sufficiently developed and active enough for that to occur and ignoring the data does not change that.



The articles say no such thing. They say that the earliest POSSIBLE week that sentience is "plausible" is the 30th. 
The articles say all of the same things, also, that I myself have previously agreed to- that the brain can be capable of such sentience. However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality. We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think. Our brains clearly are fully functional and appear to have the capacity to function as a whole, but that does not mean that they actually DO function that way. We lack a lot in the realm of perception, which can unfortunately shadow a lot of truths for people, causing us to come to conclusions that do not have any corresponding evidence to back up. 



> There are some people that hold a fetus is not conscious and the evidence used to prove that also proves that a child is not conscious up to a full year. That IS pure lunacy and as of yet I have not seen ANYTHING that suggests a fetus is not a conscious being by week 30.



Again- Me saying that a fetus is not conscious at week 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, or 40, is not the same thing as me saying that a baby is not conscious. 

And you haven't proven squat, so stop trying to convince yourself you have.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861190 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, a fetus's brain could not at all be affected by headphones being put on the woman's ears, so the entire premise of the study is ridiculous, at best.
> ...



Is that the thing that the police use to blast noise into crowds for riot control?


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.



> My son stood larger than life, the sun dancing on his hair, his eyes sparkling as he laughed with his teammates in all the bravado only teamates can share. Grinning from ear to ear, ahead in a major semi-pro football game, my son was radiant with the joy of it, and I thanked God for days such as this.
> 
> I once had the RIGHT to kill him. For a second I imagined him not there.
> 
> That thought shot through my body like ice and anger at women like Nancy Pelosi welled up inside. What kind of monster would fight to kill innocents? What sick and twisted people are these to campaign that our tax dollars be used to MURDER men like my son, to confuse young teens carrying children, to convince them they aren&#8217;t children at all but worthless cells. Those poor teens and young women have no idea what they&#8217;re doing and how they would regret it for the rest of their lives.



Personal testimony 
Abortion: young and deceived by Jen Shroder


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1859039 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



for the most part abortion is a horrific, selfish act of terrible violence regardless of mans laws or public opinion


----------



## Father Time (Jan 2, 2010)

JenT said:


> Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I watched another shouting fest that was most abortion threads a horrible thought hit me.

I could make a worthless appeal to emotion right now.

The thought jolted through my body like a defibrillator. What kind of slow witted dolt would result to such cheesy drek? What kind of a person would result to just trying to tug on the heartstrings, and hurl insults, instead of attempting to argue their side? What kind of a person does it take to just run around screaming bloody murder (literally) at confused teens, and everyone else. As I looked down from my high horse at such people I could not help but shake my head in disgust.

Sorry, were you saying something?


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2010)

yes I was saying that for the most part what a selfish, horrific act of violence abortion is regardless of how it is rationalized with tales of poor confused teens..


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I believe that the moment the baby breathes its own air, it becomes alive








> Until it breathes, the fetus is pushed by the woman, to get it out



Fail.




> Actually, full fledged consciousness may not actually begin for a full five minutes following initial breathing, if the umbilical cord cannot be cut in time. See it takes five minutes for the veins to collapse and stop circulating in the infant, after birth, if the umbilical cord is not cut. Regardless of whether babies in this instance are fully cognitive or not until five minutes after birth, we still consider them to be living beings, based on the fact that they are now, for all rational, legal, and scientific purposes, generally self sustaining individuals, as the umbilical cord CAN be cut, if there was any issue, and the baby CAN get artificial ventilation if needed.



Eight..because whether the cord is cut effects whether they're sentient


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> > JD_2B said:
> >
> >
> > > ?????????????? You make no fucking sense.  Hilarious!!! Since when are chairpersons, salespeople, and spokespersons, not fucking PEOPLE?? BOY OH BOY!!!
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's *plausible* doesn't mean you aren't dead.

In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Father Time said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861190 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

JenT said:


> Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Comparing a fetus to a born person and posting a picture, is nothing more than an appeal to emotional rhetoric, and would not be at all considered by any person who uses objectivity to think things out, unlike you, who clearly allows pictures of six year olds to determine your reasoning behind why YOU FEEL that a blob of tissue is somehow a person.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being.
> 
> 
> Yes, that is true. I believe that the building blocks to attaining consciousness are present prior to birth, prior to the fetus completing all of the necessary prerequisites required of involuntary bodily function, before it can achieve sentience.



That some think movement equals consciousness is not the reason they believe women should be prosecuted. That is being intellectually dishonest and/or obtuse. Regardless the next question are is the former belief (that women shoudl never prosecuted no matter when the pregnancy is terminated0 at all dependent on the later (when consciousness occurs)? You gave a conditional response to this below......

The next thing I ask is do you recognize what your position means in terms of the point at which one becomes conscious and do you recognize that it's not a logical position? You have stated you believe consciousness manifests itself immediately after birth by the act of breathing. You would then have to show that somehow taking a first breathe triggers a level of consciousness at which you would find killing the baby prosecutable. You would have to show that breathing somehow measurably changes one's awareness, understanding, neurology etc.. Can you do that?




JD_2B said:


> As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned.



If legally it doesn't change your position, that is if you KNEW that a child was, pre-birth, a concsious human being, would you not be forced to admit, given your first statement above that, that is an instance in which murder should be legal? 



JD_2B said:


> I think that there is no logical reason to believe that a fetus can process and reason and understand ANYTHING, or that it can make voluntary movements, which would be hazardous to not only itself, but the woman who is carrying it. This can only logically happen when it is born.



This is an argument you should really drop as a condition of abortion because you would be hard pressed to show that a baby immediately after birth is measurably better at reasoning, understanding, making voluntary movements, etc. than it is immediately pre-birth. 



JD_2B said:


> So now, you are changing your argument about dependence on the mother, regarding her responsibility (which, by the way, I responded to in a very civil way, and was practically burned at the stake for saying that being responsible for a baby is societal, and not necessarily the mother's responsibility).
> 
> And yes- the dependence on the world's society to be available to care for it and such, is far different from it's dependence on the mother to be ALIVE, HEALTHY AND UNHARMED, in order for it to grow. Society may have a hundred people caring for that baby, who can all get sick and die, while they are caring for that baby, but the baby will not die, also. This is not so with the woman carrying a ZEF. You HAVE to admit that to yourself. It is MUCH MUCH DIFFERENT.



I didn't change anything. YOU presumed I was referring to the mother's level of responsibility toward the child pre-birth and after birth. Repsonsibility of the mother can be debated, the child's dependence on the mother can't. I corrected you pointing out that I was not referring to the mother's responsibility to the child, but to the child's dependance on the mother. I made that point because you had been making arguments concerning the autonomy of the fetus and had brought up time and time again it's dependence on what the person carrying it does to herself and by extension to the baby. 

And no there is no difference between the mother and the rest of society in terms of a child's level of dependence. The child is dependant on others for survival, period.  When in the womb it is wholly dependent on the mother. When outside our society has been set up such that that is still largely the case. By and large the mother does not get to say 'okay society I did my part now it's all yours.' The child really doesn't care or have the capacity to care about who does that. If you want to talk about responsibility, what right do you have to hold the rest of society responsible for a choice they didn't make?





JD_2B said:


> You are unbelievable. Instead of giving a rational response, you again resort to factless emotional rhetoric, and abusive language that suggests that all women who abort must immediately be "life takers", who have no sense of "responsibility", and use, exclusively "poor judgment". Thinly veiled attack. Not cool.



Remembering that we are only talking about consensual encounters here, if it gets to that point. 4 months into a pregnancy and you find yourself having to choose to abort the pregnancy it means you didn't do an awful lot of things that could have prevented you from having to make that choice at that point. I don't know how that can be defined any other way than irresponsible. That is not an emotional response. It is what it is. If you believe as I do, that at some point in the pregnancy that fetus is a human being and that is the point you decide to abort then yes, you are holding another life responsible, by putting the negative consequences of your actions on him/her. 




JD_2B said:


> Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions.



It is not my intent to hold them criminally accountable for poor decision making. It is my intent to hold them criminally accountable for taking another human life. 




JD_2B said:


> Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)



All you had to say is that you don't understand how you used false logic. You're not gonna get this one I guess so we best move on.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861826 said:
			
		

> JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's *plausible* doesn't mean you aren't dead.



Doesn't mean I am, either. It is inconclusive, so as long as I do not have a DNR order, then the paramedic is required to make an attempt, based on the plausibility that I could be saved. Again, in this case, it rests solely upon whether I have a DNR order or not, and has absolutely nothing to do with the "plausibility" of a fetus having sentience, as stated in a medical journal, verbatim. Plausibility of something being true does not equate to conclusively resulting in it being empirically true. 



> In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.



Always. 

So, on the side of caution, I say that anyone not wanting to gain weight, or any more weight than they have already, or not wanting to go through extremely painful childbirth, then they have every right to err on the side of caution, and terminate as soon as the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

Father Time said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.
> ...



Yep, that the POLITICIANS are the murderers, and they are. If you read the rest of it at the site, you would know that. The politicans and the voters that vote for them, hopefully they'll think twice about that.

Cheesy drek? I'm expressing the emotions I felt as I watched my son playing football. Fortunately the whole world didn't hound me to abort him like they did the first.

How about you FT? Ever pressure a woman to abort an unexpected surprise? If so, you probably listened to the convenient lie that it's not a being as well. It was easy to do, I fell for it until it came down to it. 

So did the father of my first. He's changed his mind, though, since seeing his son's picture. Those fetuses are reality, FT, they're our children. They might not be fighting wars for us yet, or paying for your medicare, but it's the beginning of them, in the womb. Once they are conceived, they are here.

But if you were duped into believing otherwise, well, it's happened to the majority of us. And too many of us have paid way too high a price for being young, insecure and trusting in the wrong people.

Lois Capps KNOWS though. She was a nurse administering to young poor children, and she came out preaching to kill them. If ever there were humans close to monsters, that would be it, right along with Hitler. I honestly hope she reconsiders what she does and seeks Christ, for her own sake.

This is my first, he's going to have carry way more than his share of burden to care for the elderly because so many elderly aborted their own. Will he be paying extra taxes for you or did you let yours live?


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Is a fetus alive? yes. Is it human? yes. It is a "being" in fact, there is a flash of electricity that happens at the point of conception that last time I looked, doctors were unable to explain.
> ...



You're kidding, right?

Being pregnant is a cold hard fact.

And that picture of my three year old WAS that blob of tissue.

You can't subjectively rhetoric that away.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Yes, and if the moon were made of green cheese, dairy prices would be a lot lower.  And I am just as likely to dignify THAT childish fantasy with my time and argument as I am your insane notion that humans and dogs can interbreed or have ever been able to interbreed in the past.  Oh, and for the record, your attempt to get past your blatant show of ignorance by pretending you never really said that was both lame and unsuccessful.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1848894 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > My contention stands firm, that sentience and the beginning of the individual's life begins at birth, by the act of breathing.
> ...



Not to mention the fact that, despite JD's elementary school-level understanding, not all creatures respirate in the same way that adult humans do.  Doesn't mean they don't respirate, or that they're not alive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



Her apparently splendiferous taste in men explains a great deal, like her pathological hatred of being a woman, and her curious desire to believe she could have been impregnated by a dog.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1857246 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I know all kinds of stuff about biological development,
> ...



What was that quote from Ronald Reagan about "knowing so many things that aren't so"?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861826 said:
			
		

> JD, would you want a paramedic to begin treating you because it's plausible that you're not yet dead and you could be saved? Saying it's *plausible* doesn't mean you aren't dead.
> 
> In medicine, we are always to err on the side of caution.



Well, according to Dr. JD's worldview, if she has a heart attack, we should all just let her lie there, because once her heart stopped beating, she was dead and that was it.  So we're perfectly justified in shrugging and saying, "Oh, well.  That sucked", and walking away, rather than starting CPR to get her heart beating again.

I for one am extremely glad that the real world isn't drawn in the simplistic crayon strokes of JD's worldview.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861826 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then a doctor is also required to try to preserve the life of the child and not kill it. Thanks for demonstrating that we are to err on the side of caution- you just refuted your own post.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

For the record, if I have a heart attack and you're not sure I'm dead, CPR would be appreciated... Thank you in advance you erring on the side of caution.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I believe that women should not be criminally prosecuted for making decisions that affect their bodies, lives, or spirit, just because someone somewhere deems that certain movements of a fetus are equivalent to the movements of a conscious being.
> ...



Do you or don't you want women to be criminalized for obtaining (illegal) abortions outside of your subjective field of acceptance? Answer the question. 



> The next thing I ask is do you recognize what your position means in terms of the point at which one becomes conscious and do you recognize that it's not a logical position? You have stated you believe consciousness manifests itself immediately after birth by the act of breathing. You would then have to show that somehow taking a first breathe triggers a level of consciousness at which you would find killing the baby prosecutable. You would have to show that breathing somehow measurably changes one's awareness, understanding, neurology etc.. Can you do that?



If a woman decided to abort a pregnancy, during the time when the fetus is deemed to be potentially conscious, and was therefore illegal, what should her punishment be? Can you ANSWER that? Because really, we have been discussing the rest for weeks, and no matter what response I have given you, your ultimate retort will be that it is *I* who is being illogical, even despite the fact that the only "evidence" you have given on fetal sentience has been inconclusive. Clearly, neither of us can prove that any event, either scientific or divine, happens at the moment of birth and breathing. 
I will admit that my belief that the baby is sentient at birth is PARTIALLY religious in nature, but that makes no difference in the discussion whatsoever, being that your belief that killing is wrong, is also religious in nature as well. We both belong to a country/world that is primarily religious, which means that even if we do not admit to being religious, there is absolutely no doubt that religious views will affect out personal value systems, even when those have been decided on the basis of free thought, which, of course, is entirely relative, in and of itself. I have, in no way, ever BASED a claim that fetuses are not sentient on the BIBLICAL belief that born babies become living beings when they first are awarded the breath of life. The biblical understanding came AFTER I realized that fetuses could NOT possibly make voluntary, conscious movements in the uterus, and still be capable of succeeding in the gestation and birthing process. 

The question of abortion *being illegal* is ABSOLUTELY a question of how you think the woman should be punished. Answer the question. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > As I have said many many times, Legally- probably not. I would personally, however, remain open minded to the woman having a limited array of SOCIALLY acceptable reasons to terminate the pregnancy, for the same Personal moral reasons that I have today, none of which include anything to do with fetal rights, or the fact that the fetus was (hypothetically speaking) conscious. There is such a thing as anesthesia, so the consciousness of the fetus is truly a moot point, as far as I am concerned.
> ...



No! I just SAID that this was a PERSONAL view. Women should not be criminalized for making choices that affect their bodies, and their lives, either personally or otherwise, just because a group of other people think that what is inside of her is, according to your sources, and the basis of your hypothetical here, only REALLY "plausibly" sentient. THE WOMAN *IS* SENTIENT. That is a CERTAINTY. So, whether the fetus who required her blood and air to grow, and continue to be "hypothetically sentient" is sentient or not, my LEGAL view on the matter is that SHE is not to be treated as some kind of perpetual baby oven, and imprisoned for choosing otherwise, in any stage of the pregnancy. It is HER blood, and HER air, and HER uterus, and sentience does not change that biological certainty, in any scope of a legal argument. 

How would she be punished if this sort of thing was TRULY considered "murder", in your opinion? How do you think the woman should be punished for making this decision? Answer. 





> This is an argument you should really drop as a condition of abortion because you would be hard pressed to show that a baby immediately after birth is measurably better at reasoning, understanding, making voluntary movements, etc. than it is immediately pre-birth.



And no study or source you have found has shown that this type of activity exists pre-birth, but in SEVERAL of your sources, you have shown that pre term infants DO show better reactions than their fetal counterparts. YOU showed this. YOU are the only one who is solidifying MY arguments, through your own half assed, despondent attempts at belittling them, all because you cannot deal with this EMOTIONALLY. 

I realize that a 9 month gestated fetus looks like and is the same size as a 3 week old preemie that was born three weeks early. The three week OLD baby shows MORE response than the fetus does. YOUR SOURCES SAY SO. 
My opinion is that there is a higher power that neither one of us might ever understand or fully grasp, at work here. There is NO explanation of logic as to why and how this phenomenon occurs. That does not make it impossible. And YOUR sources PROVE that. 



> I didn't change anything. YOU presumed I was referring to the mother's level of responsibility toward the child pre-birth and after birth. Repsonsibility of the mother can be debated, the child's dependence on the mother can't. I corrected you pointing out that I was not referring to the mother's responsibility to the child, but to the child's dependance on the mother. I made that point because you had been making arguments concerning the autonomy of the fetus and had brought up time and time again it's dependence on what the person carrying it does to herself and by extension to the baby.



Social dependence does not equal physical dependence. You cannot get past the fact that physical dependence for a fetus is a reliance on the mother being alive, period. Socially, the person caring for a baby can die, and the baby will still live for an indefinite period of time. Truly, you need to get PAST this. 



> And no there is no difference between the mother and the rest of society in terms of a child's level of dependence. The child is dependant on others for survival, period.  *When in the womb it is wholly dependent on the mother. When outside our society has been set up such that that is still largely the case.*



Again- if the person with the social responsibility died, then baby would cry, the person would be found, in a matter of days (generally speaking) and the baby would have the capability of growing up into adulthood. This is NOT how it works with fetuses. Move the fuck on, brother. 



> By and large the mother does not get to say 'okay society I did my part now it's all yours.' The child really doesn't care or have the capacity to care about who does that. If you want to talk about responsibility, what right do you have to hold the rest of society responsible for a choice they didn't make?



Ah a sociological conundrum. Actually, because there are so many people in society who do not want to have more biological children, or cannot have biological children, then surrogate parents are often used, and even more than this, mothers (and fathers) who are carrying a fetus will sign papers voluntarily giving their child, once born alive, the parental rights to that child. Society DOES make the choice. OFTEN. I have a "long lost Aunt" who we found out lives in Scotland. The story goes like this: My grandfather used to beat my grandma. My grandma, at one point, needed some friendly good touch, and love.. She went off and fell in love with another guy, while she was married to the shitstain we DONT really call "gramps". (I refer to him as Harry). This was in the 1940s. She already had three kids, and knew that she could not go home to Harry with a bulging belly, so she asked a friend to take care of one of her existing three girls. (My Aunt). So the friends adopted her. My grandma moved somewhere (I have no idea where). My Aunt was never really happy with the situation, but seems to be a happy, well adjusted adult, with a full family who loves her, now. She wants nothing to do with our family, of course. The feelings involved with being "given up" are very much akin to "unwantedness", even though the family that cared for her and loved her, definitely did WANT her.  The choice was not pushed on them. It was voluntary. 
Society does not take kids based on involuntary servitude. 
Furthermore, to claim that a woman who is 8 or 9 months pregnant should not abort, along with these statements above, is much akin to saying that she should not put the child up for adoption, also. What is WRONG with this picture? Talk about lacking logic. Good Grief!!!



> Remembering that we are only talking about consensual encounters here, if it gets to that point. 4 months into a pregnancy and you find yourself having to choose to abort the pregnancy it means you didn't do an awful lot of things that could have prevented you from having to make that choice at that point. I don't know how that can be defined any other way than irresponsible. That is not an emotional response. It is what it is. If you believe as I do, that at some point in the pregnancy that fetus is a human being and that is the point you decide to abort then yes, you are holding another life responsible, by putting the negative consequences of your actions on him/her.



And having consensual sex, and being a person who does not have a period but every few months, one might not ever notice that they even missed one to begin with. Women are not, and should not be prosecuted for being sexually active, just because YOU think that they should be taking a weekly fucking pregnancy test.. My word. The only arguments for negative actions you are even discussing here is the sole fact that MOST women do not sit there and test themselves for pregnancy every freaking week. Get through it!! That is PREPOSTEROUS AND OUTRAGEOUS!!! 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I understand that. That does not mean that the ones who were too ignorant about birth control to use it should be criminalized for having to save for three months to have a fourth month abortion, or that those who were on birth control, causing them to have two periods a year, should be criminalized, for not wanting a pregnancy, and not knowing until they were 6 months along, that a pregnancy was present. I agree that it sucks, but that is too bad. It is especially too bad for a woman who makes that kind of decision, as 1:16,000 of those Third trimester abortions end in death for the woman, as it is. That doesn't mean that it should not be her right to go ahead and abort it. Some men say they have had a vasectomy, just to have unprotected sex, even when they knew that the woman was not on birth control. There are a lot of naive and even stupid people in this world, and they shouldn't be treated as criminals for making unhealthy decisions.
> ...



Ok so how should women who abort in the 4th month be punished then?? Go ahead, and answer the question. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I have never heard of, seen, or gotten any kind of orders, understandings, knowledge, or otherwise from a fetusperson, so to me this is all emotionally charged rhetoric on your side's behalf. =)
> ...



Oh really- please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us? YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LOGICAL ANSWER. 

And pissing me off in the process.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861826 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Google "DNR" order, you fucking halfwit.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1848894 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fetus get's it's oxygen from a vein that goes from the mother to the fetus.  
But, hey, if attacking me personally, because I happen to know that, makes you somehow feel important- then have a blast!! =)


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2010)

pictures really do speak a thousand words...dont they

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp--UE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

Late-Term Abortions


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2010)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlA0-ZGy2To&feature=fvw[/ame]


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 2, 2010)

LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.

AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1861826 said:
> ...



Ah, yes.  Silly me for not knowing when I posted about something you didn't mention until afterward.  How COULD I have been so stupid?

Trust me, girlie.  I doubt that YOU even need that DNR.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1848894 said:
> ...



No, Mensa Girl.  There is no "vein from the mother to the fetus".  I have already posted to you both a quote and a link specifying how the fetus receives oxygen and nutrients through the umbilical cord, way back when you were brilliantly - and incorrectly, needless to say - telling the board how the mother and fetus share a blood supply.

I realize this is an utter waste of time, but I'm feeling charitable.

FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION

Throughout the fetal stage of development, the maternal blood supplies the fetus with O2 and nutrients and carries away its wastes. 
These substances *diffuse between the maternal and fetal blood through the placental membrane.*

In the fetal circulatory system, *the umbilical vein transports blood rich in O2 and nutrients from the placenta to the fetal body.* 

Once again, the mother's blood does not enter the fetal body, and they have completely separate blood supplies . . . as has been explained to you previously.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 2, 2010)

eots said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlA0-ZGy2To&feature=fvw



So your proof basically boils down to 'that blob looks human'?

You can at least try eots.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 2, 2010)

Father Time said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlA0-ZGy2To&feature=fvw
> ...



Well, why not?  Do you know how many times I've heard the fatbrained argument of "a fetus doesn't LOOK human"?  Meaning, of course, that he doesn't look like an ADULT human, as though he should.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Else wouldn't all children have to have the same blood type as the mother? You know, since mixing blood types is *lethal*... In fact, after the first pregnancy, if the second child's bloodtype is the same as the first and different than the mothers, antibodies can still cross the membrane and cause all kinds of hell.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> THE WOMAN *IS* SENTIENT.


though not necessarily intelligent, as you've been so kind to demonstrate.


> please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us?


So you're only a 'person' if you have knowledge to share?

Are you sure you want to surrender your personhood status like that?


----------



## eots (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.
> 
> AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!



a human face you say..interesting...and you consider the human response and emotion to the reality of abortion to be rhetoric and not your pages of flailing attempts to rationalize away these normal human responses ?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Do you or don't you want women to be criminalized for obtaining (illegal) abortions outside of your subjective field of acceptance? Answer the question.



Yes I think ANYONE that takes another innocent human life should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The real question is why don't you believe that?




JD_2B said:


> If a woman decided to abort a pregnancy, during the time when the fetus is deemed to be potentially conscious, and was therefore illegal, what should her punishment be? Can you ANSWER that?



She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.




JD_2B said:


> Because really, we have been discussing the rest for weeks, and no matter what response I have given you, your ultimate retort will be that it is *I* who is being illogical, even despite the fact that the only "evidence" you have given on fetal sentience has been inconclusive. Clearly, neither of us can prove that any event, either scientific or divine, happens at the moment of birth and breathing.



If that were the case that would force you to admit that the possibility exists you are taking another human life. Curious that you are okay with that risk In truth though you can't keep waffling between terms. You have stated before that sentience really doesn't matter to you from a legal perspective. So YOU answer a direct question: At what point should a woman be prosecuted for killing her child?




JD_2B said:


> I will admit that my belief that the baby is sentient at birth is PARTIALLY religious in nature, but that makes no difference in the discussion whatsoever, being that your belief that killing is wrong, is also religious in nature as well.



I haven't brought up my religious beliefs once in this thread that I am aware of. AGAIN it is you doing the bulk of the baseless presuming dear. My beliefs about killing an innocent human life does not come from what any religion tells me about the matter. Personally I find people who's morality is guided by religion to be rather weak minded. The rest of your bull shit argument about my position being religious wether I recognize it or not is just that, bull shit. To contend that is to contend that without religion humans can not distinguish between right and wrong.




JD_2B said:


> The question of abortion *being illegal* is ABSOLUTELY a question of how you think the woman should be punished. Answer the question.



Done




JD_2B said:


> No! I just SAID that this was a PERSONAL view. Women should not be criminalized for.......



I haven't posted any sources in this thread at all. You're thinking of prolet, I believe.




JD_2B said:


> How would she be punished if this sort of thing was TRULY considered "murder", in your opinion? How do you think the woman should be punished for making this decision? Answer.



The same way any person is punished for murder. I suppose in the court system it could actually range from anything from manslaughter to pre-meditated murder depending on the circumstances. The punishment of which would be whatever the legal statutes are for that charge. That is all dependent of course on the a child being given legal status that would warrant those charges, but assuming it was, why would the punishment be any different for killing an unborn human being than killing a born one? 




JD_2B said:


> And no study or source you have found has shown that this type of activity exists pre-birth, but in SEVERAL of your sources, you have shown that pre term infants DO show better reactions than their fetal counterparts. YOU showed this. YOU are the only one who is solidifying MY arguments, through your own half assed, despondent attempts at belittling them, all because you cannot deal with this EMOTIONALLY.
> 
> I realize that a 9 month gestated fetus looks like and is the same size as a 3 week old preemie that was born three weeks early. The three week OLD baby shows MORE response than the fetus does. YOUR SOURCES SAY SO.
> My opinion is that there is a higher power that neither one of us might ever understand or fully grasp, at work here. There is NO explanation of logic as to why and how this phenomenon occurs. That does not make it impossible. And YOUR sources PROVE that.



yeah....not me again. I'm not sure I care what the sources say. I only maintain that your extreme stance isn't logical to me. You see your argument renders what the sources say irrelevent. I don't have to prove they're right. All I have to do is make a decent argument that you are not. The only problem is I'm not sure you even know what your position is considering how much back and forth you've done on it. So I again ask at what point if any, should a woman be prosecuted for killing her children?




JD_2B said:


> Social dependence does not equal physical dependence. You cannot get past the fact that physical dependence for a fetus is a reliance on the mother being alive, period. Socially, the person caring for a baby can die, and the baby will still live for an indefinite period of time. Truly, you need to get PAST this.



No child before the age of about 3 (before including just post conception) will survive long without SOMEONE caring for it. YOU made the assertion that a justification for abortion is that the fetus is this 'thing' that is wholly dependent on you for survival and thus has no rights of it's own. All I am trying to get across is that relatively speaking their is little difference in the level of dependence a child has on SOMEONE to insure its survival pre-birth or post-birth   




JD_2B said:


> Again- if the person with the social responsibility died, then baby would cry, the person would be found, in a matter of days (generally speaking) and the baby would have the capability of growing up into adulthood. This is NOT how it works with fetuses. Move the fuck on, brother.



WOW. Now we're really reaching....... 






JD_2B said:


> Ah a sociological conundrum. Actually, because there are so many people in society who do not want to have more biological children, or cannot have biological children, then surrogate parents are often used, and even more than this, mothers (and fathers) who are carrying a fetus will sign papers voluntarily giving their child, once born alive, the parental rights to that child. Society DOES make the choice. OFTEN. I have a "long lost Aunt" who we found out lives in Scotland. The story goes like this: My grandfather used to beat my grandma. My grandma, at one point, needed some friendly good touch, and love.. She went off and fell in love with another guy, while she was married to the shitstain we DONT really call "gramps". (I refer to him as Harry). This was in the 1940s. She already had three kids, and knew that she could not go home to Harry with a bulging belly, so she asked a friend to take care of one of her existing three girls. (My Aunt). So the friends adopted her. My grandma moved somewhere (I have no idea where). My Aunt was never really happy with the situation, but seems to be a happy, well adjusted adult, with a full family who loves her, now. She wants nothing to do with our family, of course. The feelings involved with being "given up" are very much akin to "unwantedness", even though the family that cared for her and loved her, definitely did WANT her.  The choice was not pushed on them. It was voluntary.
> Society does not take kids based on involuntary servitude.
> Furthermore, to claim that a woman who is 8 or 9 months pregnant should not abort, along with these statements above, is much akin to saying that she should not put the child up for adoption, also. What is WRONG with this picture? Talk about lacking logic. Good Grief!!!



That long winded BS doesn't mean adoption is off the table. This is real simple JD. Again presuming you believe a child is a human being at some point pre-birth, all that is being argued is that you don't have the right to murder that child without being prosecuted. 




JD_2B said:


> And having consensual sex, and being a person who does not have a period but every few months, one might not ever notice that they even missed one to begin with. Women are not, and should not be prosecuted for being sexually active, just because YOU think that they should be taking a weekly fucking pregnancy test.. My word. The only arguments for negative actions you are even discussing here is the sole fact that MOST women do not sit there and test themselves for pregnancy every freaking week. Get through it!! That is PREPOSTEROUS AND OUTRAGEOUS!!!



Why is it preposterous for a woman to find out if an outcome she KNOWS is possible, a life changing outcome at that, has actually happened. What fucking sense does it make to go through everything you went through, when it could have been prevented so much sooner by simply taking a pregnancy test? Forget our disagreement for a moment on what you and I consider irresponsible behavior, doesn't it just plain make the most sense to find out as soon as possible?




JD_2B said:


> Ok so how should women who abort in the 4th month be punished then?? Go ahead, and answer the question.



Depends on whether the child could be considered a human life at that point. The science isn't quite there yet on that issue. As I said above. I don't find it relevant to your position because in your position the justification for abortion doesn't stop at that point in time. I have gathered it stops after the baby is born and it may not even matter whether it is human life before that to you as a legal issue.




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Oh really- please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us? YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LOGICAL ANSWER.
> ...


----------



## HUGGY (Jan 2, 2010)

*What do you believe abortion laws should be?
*

Oh by all means we need a national abortion law that states that fundis can stone a woman to death for even talking about the possibility.

Then we need to pass a law that states that anyone that does not agree with your religion has the right to kill you....therby streamlining the earlier law.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Oh for the love of Pete. Last time. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SPOKESPERSONS, SALESPERSONS, CHAIRPERSONS, ETC. ARE ALL PERSONS, IS A TRUE STATEMENT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU SAID, THAT ALL PERSONS ARE SALESPERSONS, CHAIRPERSONS, ETC., IS *NOT* A TRUE STATEMENT?



Don't confuse her with logic... 

Didn't anyone ever tell you to not pick on the retarded?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 2, 2010)

Question: is conception when the egg and sperm unite or is conception actually when the united egg and sperm attaches itself to the uterus?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Question: is conception when the egg and sperm unite or is conception actually when the united egg and sperm attaches itself to the uterus?


No. Fertilization usually occurs in the fallopian tubes, if memory serves.

The embryo forms before the woman is even pregnant.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Fertilization and implantation.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 2, 2010)

also, a sentient fetus is not necessarily a viable fetus...a viable fetus is about 24 weeks...we have had success with a fetus that was delivered prematurely at 21 weeks....where the child is A-ok now and was released from the hospital.  The medical procedures have greatly improved for premature infants being born.

the SC in roe v wade gave the a-ok for abortions up to 12 weeks....beyond that, it was up to each individual state to determine...if memory serves, and beyond 6 months had to be for medical reasons only.

Some states have abortion legal, only up to 12 weeks, other states allow to 24 weeks...all states determine this part on their own, without a federal edict...is my understanding?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Viability is another concern, separate from sentience. A sentient adult is not necessarily a viable adult, especially after a gunshot or a car wreck. However, the question of viability and whether they can be saved mostly comes into play after it's determined that they are either confirmed or likely sentient.

Again, I see abortion and braindeath as effectively the same fundamental issue- when is it acceptable to end a human life?

Edit:: This falls under the broader question of when it's okay to end any life- a connection i tried to make evident with the animal rights thread that died out.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 2, 2010)

Wasn't there a later case that overruled RvW? I was under the impression that RvW was no longer the binding decision?


----------



## Care4all (Jan 2, 2010)

i am no expert on this but i believe there were several subsequent cases that solidified R v W.  And the one case on late term abortions that weakened it slightly


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

eots said:


> pictures really do speak a thousand words...dont they
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_7jnp--UE&feature=player_embedded
> 
> Late-Term Abortions



wow

THAT is going on the front page of my website, thanks!


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

Care4all said:


> i am no expert on this but i believe there were several subsequent cases that solidified R v W.  And the one case on late term abortions that weakened it slightly



"Roe" who originally filed Roe v Wade, has been campaigning against abortion for a long time now. She's 100% prolife.

Abortion - Pro Life - Priests for Life: Norma McCorvey&#39;s Pro-Life Ministry and Website


----------



## JenT (Jan 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.
> 
> AKA: Rhetoric.. Which is NOT objective. I have an "emoticon" for that!



Murder is devestating and shameful. Killing of human life is emotional no matter which way you cut it.

Women grieving for their children that are no more, is emotional.

The emotional scars that ruin lives, not to mention the shredded human never given the chance, are real.

Why would you throw out emotion? The tragedies of life are emotional. 

The death of life is reality.

At the point of conception, when the egg combines with the sperm, everything about the child is decided. What color hair, what color eyes, will he or she have freckles...  it's not subjective its fact.


----------



## Care4all (Jan 2, 2010)

Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.

It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....



Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 2, 2010)

> bern
> She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.



I would disagree here.  I believe that those laws were created to deal with adults and there are many things surrounding an abortion that make it very difficult to fit it into those categories.  I believe a charge for obtaining an illegal abortion should be exactly that; obtaining an illegal abortion.  That should carry a heavy punishment to include some jail time to be determined, as you said, by the circumstances surrounding the charge.  

  Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion?  As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months.  That seems to be the best place for sentience  my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.  



> JD
> Plausible does not mean "conclusive".


And the theory of gravity is still a theory and not fact.  What is your point?  YOU are not conclusively sentient, it is just highly likely.  There is no conclusiveness in science, even medical science. 



> EXCEPT that the word EXCEPT is the root word for the term and functionality of the word "exception".
> Besides- "Imminent danger", at least in the world of third trimester abortionists, means "possible risk to death" and is a game of statistical risks to the mother. You invalidate my own statistical risks to the mother, based on her weight gain, and possibility of having a heart attack or gestational diabetes. When playing statistics, be sure that your own statistical risks are no less than 100%, especially when one claims that other statistical risks of death or serious injury are far less, because I guarantee you that 100% of women who have died of a heart attack or during childbirth, CAUSED by the condition of being pregnant, after seeking abortion services in a locale that does not allow or offer them, did still die. I can also guarantee you that 100% of women who have full term pregnancies die, also. Some die as a result of pregnancies, and the weight gain involved, which contributed to them getting cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. That statistic is a little bit difficult to argue with. So.. Go ahead and define "imminent danger", and try like hell to justify a woman dying from weight gain caused by multiple pregnancies, compared with her dying during the pregnancy.. Nothing is really nearly as imminent as you make it out to be, except for ectopic pregnancies, which can last for several weeks without treatment, as well.


Blah blah fucking blah.  You know what imminent danger means and I will not degrade myself by explaining the meaning to you.  That is not an actual exception, it is a medical necessity.



> However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality.


Based on nothing more than emotion, yes.  You have no evidence or coherent argument as to why you take that stance.  


> We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think.


Where the hell did you get that idea!!!  Do you have ANY working knowledge in biology?


----------



## Contumacious (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864271 said:
			
		

> Wasn't there a later case that overruled RvW? I was under the impression that RvW was no longer the binding decision?



*Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914  (U.S. 06/28/2000) *

Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion" violates the Federal Constitution, *as interpreted in* Casey and *Roe.* Pp. 3-27.

[18]    	(a) Because the statute seeks to ban one abortion method, the Court discusses several different abortion procedures, as described in the evidence below and the medical literature. During a pregnancy's second trimester (12 to 24 weeks), the most common abortion procedure is "dilation and evacuation" (D&E), which involves dilation of the cervix, removal of at least some fetal tissue using nonvacuum surgical instruments, and (after the 15th week) the potential need for instrumental dismemberment of the fetus or the collapse of fetal parts to facilitate evacuation from the uterus. When such dismemberment is necessary, it typically occurs as the doctor pulls a portion of the fetus through the cervix into the birth canal. The risks of mortality and complication that accompany D&E are significantly lower than those accompanying induced labor procedures (the next safest mid-second-trimester procedures). A variation of D&E, known as "intact D&E," is used after 16 weeks. It involves removing the fetus from the uterus through the cervix "intact," i.e., in one pass rather than several passes. The intact D&E proceeds in one of two ways, depending on whether the fetus presents head first or feet first. The feet-first method is known as "dilation and extraction" (D&X). D&X is ordinarily associated with the term "partial birth abortion." The District Court concluded that clear and convincing evidence established that Carhart's D&X procedure is superior to, and safer than, the D&E and other abortion procedures used during the relevant gestational period in the 10 to 20 cases a year that present to Carhart. Moreover, materials presented at trial emphasize the potential benefits of the D&X procedure in certain cases. Pp. 3-10.

.


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2010)

Meet Amillia Taylor - or what she looked like in October, when she was born as the world's youngest surviving premature baby. Amillia was born at a Miami hospital after less than 22 weeks of development. Since then she's been incubating and is expected to go home soon.

Is there nothing more amazing than those teeny tiny translucent feet. Hold your own hand out in front of you, and imagine those feet poking through your fingers. She was 10 OUNCES when born (280 grams), and 9.5 inches (24 cm). That's just longer than the length of your hand.

Now she looks like this:The Cellar Image of the Day


if an unborn child of 22 weeks is viable out of the womb ..how can it possible not be a human child and not a blob..and how can terminating this child be anything but murder that is simply veiled by the womb and hidden from view ???...I dont know what the laws should be..but I would strongly  plea with any woman that finds her self with child not to end its life unless there is  in very grave danger you may lose theirs and to any woman that has made that tragic error you have my sympathy and prayers not my_ judgement_


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.
> 
> It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....
> 
> Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)



Know what I think is a shame? (and as you're prolife you might agree) I think its a shame that you can't vote "unless of life threatening circumstances" because that gets exploited and millions are aborted because that opened the door to any reason.

I THINK that's how Roe v Wade was ruled isn't it? And yet abortion exists on demand.  At least it is in California.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Contumacious said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864271 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So partial birth abortions are PREFERRED? Am I reading that right? (I'm sleepy, about to sign off)

your sig, though...   it doesn't make much sense, it all starts at conception...or do you just like dreaming about your showers?


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2010)

Reality check... medical reason for late term abortion can simply mean a belief it could negatively effect the woman's mental health..ie: make her _depressed_..or could cause _emotional trauma_ which effectively allows late term abortion on demand


----------



## Contumacious (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864271 said:
> ...




I see, so from your standpoint  the gametes can be left out of the equation without a problem!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bullshit.

.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > JenT said:
> ...



It is drek (or close to it), it's just a massive appeal to emotion and proclaiming it's murder. (It isn't as murder is a legal term). I don't doubt you can argue against it without that kind of stuff so why must you use appeal to emotion.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.
> ...



Abortion is not murder. Murder is a legal term, and using that term on a debate forum, especially in the "law and justice system" sub-forum, is not only being dishonest, but is an APPEAL to emotional RHETORIC, no matter which way YOU cut it. 



> Women grieving for their children that are no more, is emotional.



They don't grieve for their children. They never HAD the children to grieve for, and any appeal to emotion that you are trying to convey, by saying this, is planting the assumption that women do not or should not have the capacity to understand their own decisions. The only thing ANY woman who talks to YOU in response to your own words and rhetoric, is only grieving the pains of constantly being treated like a criminal, for doing something that is perfectly legal and on par with autonomy. 
You pro lifers made up this pseudo=psychological term called "Post Abortion Stress Syndrome", which is a complete facade, determined by the American Psychological Association, and is only considered by the APA to be closely related to PTSD. This PTSD is generally understood to be caused by verbal abuse and emotional degradations much akin to the shit you just wrote here, directed at one specific group of women- women who abort. 
Well, much like women who miscarry and do not find out they were pregnant until they miscarried, and are still HAPPY about not being pregnant, the VAST majority of women who abort, do it as a CHOICE. Whether YOU think that this choice is morally right or wrong, you should NOT be a bully and treat women like criminals, for making said choice. 



> The emotional scars that ruin lives, not to mention the shredded human never given the chance, are real.



The emotional scars from comments like yours, causing REAL psychological issues, such as PTSD, are MORE REAL than you seem to give a rat's ass about, and are CERTAINLY more real than any bullshit PASS claims that your side's consistent use of anti abortionist emotional rhetoric propaganda. 



> Why would you throw out emotion? The tragedies of life are emotional.



Abortion is not a tragedy. Neither is is some kind of affliction. It is a choice. 
The fact that you want to make it out to be a tragedy, is ridiculously inane. 



> The death of life is reality.



And nothing dies during an abortion. A woman simply chooses to not be pregnant anymore. 



> At the point of conception, when the egg combines with the sperm, everything about the child is decided. What color hair, what color eyes, will he or she have freckles...  it's not subjective its fact.



Not exactly. That fertilized egg could become twins, or not, even. Also, that fertilized egg could get an infection or have a mother that smokes or uses alcohol, in the third week of gestation, and be severely affected. 
Being sexually active is not some kind of societal ticket to force women who ARE sexually active to have to be some kind of big brother over themselves, just in case they are pregnant, and avoid smoking, drinking, and even getting a cold. You are simply being irrational about abortion, and have no logical debate angle to use, so instead, like everyone else on here, you are dipping your hand deep into the anti abortion propaganda machine. 

Gratz.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> > bern
> > She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.
> 
> 
> I would disagree here.  I believe that those laws were created to deal with adults and there are many things surrounding an abortion that make it very difficult to fit it into those categories.  I believe a charge for obtaining an illegal abortion should be exactly that; obtaining an illegal abortion.  That should carry a heavy punishment to include some jail time to be determined, as you said, by the circumstances surrounding the charge.



Boy was that VAGUE!!!!

So, you're still not answering the question, ey, Bernie??? LMAO!!! Figures!! 


> Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion?  As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months.  That seems to be the best place for sentience  my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.



As specific as THIS is in comparison, Bernie- you would think that you would have some CLEAR idea of how women should be punished for not falling into the neat little timeframe that you subjectively advocate for. 




> JD
> Plausible does not mean "conclusive".


And the theory of gravity is still a theory and not fact.  What is your point?  YOU are not conclusively sentient, it is just highly likely.  There is no conclusiveness in science, even medical science. [/quote]

GRAVITY has been WIDELY considered a LAW OF PHYSICS, in SCIENTIFIC SETTINGS for many many many years now. Moving the fuck on. Jesus. 



> Blah blah fucking blah.  You know what imminent danger means and I will not degrade myself by explaining the meaning to you.  That is not an actual exception, it is a medical necessity.



It is an EXCEPTION because it is "except for" the "medical necessity of the mother". 
Well, I call weight gain and stretch marks medical necessity, even if those are only "medical" conditions and disorders that stand in the way of a woman's career or personal life. Guess what else?? Many DOCTORS are more than willing to take this stance too. So go ahead.. Keep it an exception. Even the healthiest woman can find someone willing to make her an "exception", and write it up in his medical report as a "necessity". =)



> > However, I refuse to accept that capacity is equivalent to actual functionality.
> 
> 
> Based on nothing more than emotion, yes.  You have no evidence or coherent argument as to why you take that stance.
> ...




You clearly do not even understand the brain function that YOU YOURSELF are arguing for. FYI, only certain parts of the brain function at any given time. 
PS- Ad hominems do not help your argument, any more than rhetoric does, so please try to follow along, and remain civil.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.
> 
> It is a shame, a real shame that pictures of women that chose to keep their babies but in late term had to abort them due to medical reasons, like to save her own life, are used to exploit the position of the prolifers.... AND I am prolife so don't be yelling at me as though I am not....



Thank you!! 





> Show me one state that legally allows abortion after 6 months. (for just the will of the mother and not medical reasons)



Well, that is the sad reality of it all. Even in states where it is illegal to abort based on the mother's will, rather than medical necessity, there are a great deal of doctors who are willing to mark up their own paperwork as though the woman's abortion WAS indeed a medical necessity, which is, I believe the subject of contention here. Some people are more willing to believe that a woman who is at a high risk for infliction of great harm, due to psychological reasons, is a qualifier, and some people do not believe this. I PERSONALLY think that psychological reasons can sometimes be a lie, a facade for a late term abortion on demand, which is wasteful, in my personal opinion, but LEGALLY, I feel that the woman should not be publicly judged and imprisoned, with her health history becoming public record, for making such a decision. Roe v Wade was decided for the right reasons, but it's language about late term abortions is not in complete conjunction with those reasons. I legally have to disagree with certain aspects of the decision, for the sake of a person's privacy.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 3, 2010)

> GRAVITY has been WIDELY considered a LAW OF PHYSICS, in SCIENTIFIC SETTINGS for many many many years now. Moving the fuck on. Jesus.


And that was the point.  It is still the theory and you will never see any medical facts pertaining to conciseness, ever.  That all you are doing here is misrepresenting the data.



> It is an EXCEPTION because it is "except for" the "medical necessity of the mother".
> Well, I call weight gain and stretch marks medical necessity, even if those are only "medical" conditions and disorders that stand in the way of a woman's career or personal life. Guess what else?? Many DOCTORS are more than willing to take this stance too. So go ahead.. Keep it an exception. Even the healthiest woman can find someone willing to make her an "exception", and write it up in his medical report as a "necessity". =)


So?  I can call the earth flat and this desk a house and it will not make it so.  IMMINENT DANGER TO LIFE. PERIOD. Stop placing words in my mouth and arguing semantics.  It is unbecoming.



> > We do not use all of our brains at the same time, and we are adults. In fact, we use very little of them, at any given time, no matter how hard we try to think.
> 
> 
> Where the hell did you get that idea!!!  Do you have ANY working knowledge in biology?




You clearly do not even understand the brain function that YOU YOURSELF are arguing for. FYI, only certain parts of the brain function at any given time. 
PS- Ad hominems do not help your argument, any more than rhetoric does, so please try to follow along, and remain civil.[/QUOTE]
NO, virtually all our brain is processing data at all times.  Capacity may not be at 100 percent but you do use 100 percent of your brain every day.  You use most of your capacity also.  There are millions of processes going through your at any given moment.  It was not an ad hominem; our brains are actually there in use for a reason.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

To recap



JD_2B said:


> So, my assertion ^is^ that it is not a *person* until the moment it takes it's first breath








> I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because  the bible defines it that way.





> We do not need anyone EDUCATING us on abortion or what is happening  inside of our bodies. Good grief. Will Big Brother EVER take a LOAD  OFF???



Yep... no information for women, lest they reject JD's extremist neofeminism



JD_2B said:


> I do not believe that abortion is killing anything.  Ever





JD_2B said:


> The day you can adopt an embryo, and take it home with you, without  taking the woman as well, let me know.



embryo transfer - definition of embryo transfer in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

AVMA Position On Embryo Transplant Procedures

Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transplant: An Artificial Insemination Centre's Viewpoint

Non-Surgical Embryo Transplants Ready For The Farm

Amazing what a few seconds on Google turns up



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1839766 said:
			
		

> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking about entities that have the *POTENTIAL* to  become human beings.
> ...





JD_2B said:


> So, If some freak show chick fucks a dog on a  stage, and gets preggers  with the dog, you are aware that her offspring would be human still,  right??
> Your argument makes no rational sense. If it is not okay to you to kill  anything that is human, then it is irrational to use birth control or  condoms, and men should never masturbate.it.





			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1841215 said:
			
		

> If I don't want to be pregnant, even if it is late term, all I have to  do to get it done legally is to go to a state that does it legally (like  Kansas), or talk some Doctor into doing it for me, and make it out to  be threatening my life (lots of pro choice doctors out there), or do  what a teenage couple did, and pay someone 50 bucks to bash the shit out  of my belly with a baseball bat a few times- and that is all AFTER I  belly flop off of a cliff, or try to strip my own membranes early on in  the pregnancy to make the water break, which would inevitably destroy  the fetus if it is not ready to be delivered.
> What CASE do you have that any given person can NOT do any number of the  things I just listed, ey?


So once again you're back to arguing  that it should be legal for me to rape you  because you can't always  prevent me from doing so?[/quote]



JD_2B said:


> Women are life support systems




Talk about dehumanizing women... They're nothing but baby-making  machines to JD




			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1845680 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...







JD_2B said:


> "Putting the kids first", is the BIGGEST mistake  that parents make these  days.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1863651 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Well, that apparently only counts if you know that a fetus is a separate organism with a distinct genetic structure and thus the capability of having a completely different blood type from his mother.  Since JD believes a fetus is just like a tumor, I guess she doesn't need to ask any questions about blood supply.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

eots said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!! Nothing like a little gospel music and pictures of human tissue, and ESPECIALLY the image of a human face, to stir up someone's emotions.
> ...



You sound like a psychiatrist.  "Hmmm, interesting.  Now let us talk about your toilet training."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Question: is conception when the egg and sperm unite or is conception actually when the united egg and sperm attaches itself to the uterus?



My medical dictionary says that the term "conception" is actually used to indicate both.  I suspect that if doctors/scientists want to be more specific, they use the terms "fertilization" and "implantation".  Otherwise, they're kinda referring to that whole period of time between.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864270 said:
			
		

> Viability is another concern, separate from sentience. A sentient adult is not necessarily a viable adult, especially after a gunshot or a car wreck. However, the question of viability and whether they can be saved mostly comes into play after it's determined that they are either confirmed or likely sentient.
> 
> Again, I see abortion and braindeath as effectively the same fundamental issue- when is it acceptable to end a human life?
> 
> Edit:: This falls under the broader question of when it's okay to end any life- a connection i tried to make evident with the animal rights thread that died out.



And see, I don't think it's okay to end a human life at all (except in cases of self-defense).  It's something else entirely to let someone go who's already dead to all intents and purposes than it is to actively kill him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> > bern
> > She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.
> 
> 
> ...



That's an old belief people used to have before they really understood brain function (not that we aren't still largely ignorant on that score, but we're closer).  People believed that we were only using 10 percent of our brain  and the potential of the rest was going untapped.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Just so you know, most video if not ALL VIDEO of late term abortions that sites like the one eots gave are pictures of late term abortions that occurred for MEDICAL REASONS, they are NOT abortions that women just chose to do haphazardly, late term, just because they felt like it.
> ...



Fortunately, that isn't the case everywhere, although obviously, doctors have discretion to say what is and isn't medically necessary, and not all of them are scrupulous about it.

When I got pregnant with Quinlan, I was actually a month farther along than I thought I was because I had been taking depo provera, which stopped my periods, so I couldn't really track them.  (Hey, who the hell expects to get pregnant at 39?)  I decided I wanted an amniocentesis to check for genetic abnormalities.  After they did the sonogram and discovered that I was actually 21 weeks along, they asked me if I wanted to change my mind about the amnio, since it was too late for me to obtain an abortion if there was something wrong.  (They had also asked me originally why I wanted to bother, since I wouldn't have had an abortion even if something WAS wrong.)

So apparently, that's the law in Arizona, and my doctor is not one to invent some fiction about "health of the mother" in order to abort a Down's Syndrome baby.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

For the record, many people DO grieve for their aborted children.  I know a man whose former fiancee got pregnant while they were both in college.  They decided that it was bad timing, she should finish school first, blah blah blah, just a blob of cells, all that happy horseshit.  That was over twenty years ago.  It destroyed their relationship and the girl's life.  He told me not that long ago that every time he looks at his children, he can't help but think about the one he helped kill, and wonder.  You should hear him talk about abortion.  Emotional rhetoric?  Sure, but a hell of a lot more meaningful than any of the supposedly "logical" bullshit JD keeps spouting.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864270 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 And here semantics become important. If we define 'kill' as simply ending the life of the prgnaism, per the standard definition, then I emphatically disagree. If we instead mean to end the existence of the individual as such, then we're back to sentience and braindeath. There are other matters, such as capital punishment, but those would be better addressed elsewhere.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> That's an old belief people used to have before they really understood brain function (not that we aren't still largely ignorant on that score, but we're closer). People believed that we were only using 10 percent of our brain and the potential of the rest was going untapped.


 In JD's case, it might be accurate.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864976 said:
			
		

> Yep... no information for women, lest they reject JD's extremist neofeminism



The comment you are referring to was in no way implying that informed consent during abortion procedures should not be utilized. You just grossly mischaracterize everything I say, as a pathetic attempt to invalidate my actual position.



http://nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_nonsurgical_embryo_transplants/


> Non-Surgical Embryo Transplants Ready For The Farm
> Amazing what a few seconds on Google turns up



"Collecting Embryos The embryos that have been collected up until now were obtained through* slaughter.* "

Not amazing at all.. That you would post links to "sources" on pig farming, when the embryos in question were obtained by no other means than fucking slaughter, you moron. 

Same slaughter effect goes for these links, also.. The third page of this one, first paragraph..
Artificial Insemination and Embryo Transplant: An Artificial Insemination Centre's Viewpoint



> http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/embryo_transplant.asp
> 
> 
> > AVMA Position On Embryo Transplant Procedures
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

> "Collecting Embryos The embryos that have been collected up until now were obtained through slaughter. "


I met your challange as it was worded. No need to take you with me.

And why are you crying? Since when do you have a problem with slaughter? Besides, it said 'until now'. They're working on itl


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> For the record, many people DO grieve for their aborted children.  I know a man whose former fiancee got pregnant while they were both in college.  They decided that it was bad timing, she should finish school first, blah blah blah, just a blob of cells, all that happy horseshit.  That was over twenty years ago.  It destroyed their relationship and the girl's life.  He told me not that long ago that every time he looks at his children, he can't help but think about the one he helped kill, and wonder.  You should hear him talk about abortion.  Emotional rhetoric?  Sure, but a hell of a lot more meaningful than any of the supposedly "logical" bullshit JD keeps spouting.



I can't tell you how much I wished I contacted my boyfriend's parents before giving my first up for adoption. If I had gotten the slightest bit of encouragement and help to keep my first, I would have. But the father didn't want me to, so I didn't.

It turned out that they never had any other grandchildren and my sons grandma, I don't know if she can ever forgive me for not giving her the chance to know her only grandchild. I've tried to encourage him to meet them, but he won't. Or hasn't gotten around to it yet. 

So I look at my sons and tell them, DONT get anyone pregnant, but if you do, and my grandchild gets aborted, well, nobody has seen "wrath" from me before. Nobody had better ever harm any of my future grandchildren! If so, there WILL be consequences. 

Bottom line:





=





we were ALL just that at one time and NOBODY should have the right to murder us in our most vulnerable stage.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

> That was not my argument


 
Yes it was, until you abandoned it along with human-dog hybrids


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Question: is conception when the egg and sperm unite or is conception actually when the united egg and sperm attaches itself to the uterus?
> ...




Conception= the beginning of when the "life", as you call it, begins. It is the beginning of the life of the ZEF.

However, Conception =/= the beginning of a pregnancy. Pregnancy begins when the product of conception, the fertilized egg, now a zygote, attaches to the WOMAN's uterus. 

Many extremists tend to say that the period between conception and implantation is also the woman's responsibility to uphold, in their own private consideration towards the "sanctity" of the "life" of the (yes, in fact  growing and increasing in size) zygote. This is why many extremists are against so called "Abortifacients" such as the Plan B pill, and hormonal birth control, which is not only capable of destroying an unfertilized egg, but also creates an even more than usually unfriendly environment in the uterus, with will generally disallow implantation to take effect. 

I can assure you that in most cases, a doctor of obstetrics is surely not going to refer to conception as the moment it implants, as that is not the moment the egg is fertilized. 

*conception        definition - medical    * 
 con·cep·tion (k&#601;n-s&#277;p&#712;sh&#601;n)
 noun

 The act of forming a general idea or notion.
 The formation of a viable zygote by the union of a spermatozoon and an ovum; fertilization.
 See  concept.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> ...Again- Because now you are veering off topic as usual, Show me how a woman being forced through a 9 month pregnancy, all because she did not find out until the last day of the third trimester, can or SHOULD, TRANSFER her FETUS to another person.



Hon, I think we make that choice when we play around with mating for purposes, apparently and sadly, for sport sex. Surprise pregnancies, IMO, can turn into blessings if we just let what we already created, live.



> Nope.. They have every right to make their own decisions in regards to this. Stop mischaracterizing my position.. It has gone beyond "little brother" annoying now. It is really REALLY sad and pathetic.



If I understand this right, it always amazes me. There's a LIFE at stake here. The selfish insistance of the mom that is facing consequences for playing around doesn't earn her the right to murder.

There are so many alternatives to that. 9 months is not a death sentence, only abortion is.



> This one is a physiological inevitability- a parent must take care of themselves, first, to be CAPABLE of caring for the kids. Go ahead and quote a portion of that one, too, so you can mischaracterize it, you social fucking reject.



If you are incapable of caring for, or choose not to, there are LONG LINES of people anxiously waiting to adopt. Its not easy to give up a child for adoption, but if you really don't want it, there is always that option.

And when they grow up and look you in the eyes and say "thank you" and you see the reality of the person they have become, wow, there's just no question in my mind, abortion is just so wrong.

But like I've written in columns, if you've already aborted and regret it now, don't beat yourself up, we were all young and deceived. God through Christ forgives and forgets and that child was never an accident, he or she IS with God. They've actually avoided the testing ground in a world that can be so painful. 

God is just SO good.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > For the record, many people DO grieve for their aborted children.  I know a man whose former fiancee got pregnant while they were both in college.  They decided that it was bad timing, she should finish school first, blah blah blah, just a blob of cells, all that happy horseshit.  That was over twenty years ago.  It destroyed their relationship and the girl's life.  He told me not that long ago that every time he looks at his children, he can't help but think about the one he helped kill, and wonder.  You should hear him talk about abortion.  Emotional rhetoric?  Sure, but a hell of a lot more meaningful than any of the supposedly "logical" bullshit JD keeps spouting.
> ...



It is not your fault that your ex boyfriend did not want children, or that his parents did not have grandkids. Stop beating yourself up over it, already. 

PS- Did YOUR parents tell you that you could talk to them any time, if you were pregnant, and that you would support any decision you made? I highly doubt it. In fact, if you had gotten "any" encouragement to become a parent, any offer of support, then your decision might have been much different. 
Also, if something other than you not wanting a child at that time, had been going on in your life, then your decision may have been much different also. 

People do not start grow up with some thought in their heads that they will EVER feel the need to give a child up for adoption or abort. Did YOU ever have to ponder that consideration before you got pregnant??

I support your decision, though. I am just sorry that you cannot find it in yourself to be supportive of any decisions your sons might make, that might differ somewhat from your own. In fact, telling them NOT to get a girl pregnant in the first place, is almost giving them a little more fuel for, when the time comes, they DO manage to get a girl pregnant. What makes you think that they will feel AT ALL comfortable with coming to you for advice, when you have already told them that PREGNANCY is not allowed, in and of itself? You are FORCING your sons into making a decision that they might not be comfortable with, and that the mother might not be comfortable with. YOU have to understand that not all of your kids' girlfriends are going to share in your way of thinking, and also- blaming your boys for ANY of it, is not going to do anything good for your relationship with them. 

I do not support ANYONE being SO coercive in making decisions for another person, whatsoever. To say that there will be WRATH inflicted, is a THREAT of HARM to anyone who dares have a different opinion or makes a different decision than what you deem worthy. 

YOUR body= YOUR decision..

Your son's girlfriend's body= HER decision.. Get it?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you sure you know what the symbol '=' means?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

> YOUR body= YOUR decision..


 
Another organism, by definition, is not your body


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> So I look at my sons and tell them, DONT get anyone pregnant, but if you do, and my grandchild gets aborted, well, nobody has seen "wrath" from me before. Nobody had better ever harm any of my future grandchildren! If so, there WILL be consequences.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT please stop calling abortion murder, it isn't murder, is a freaking legal term, so to call it murder over and over is just emotional rhetoric.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



nah

MY grandchildren = MY GRANDCHILDREN

heh, and my kids know I'm a pushover when they disobey me. I've never been very strict or punitive with them at all and I haven't had to, they always amaze me. Their teachers have told me... let's just say my kids have sterling reputations, even though lately they've gotten into a little trouble, lol, let's just say nobody can point their fingers at my kids and say "how dare you criticize the schools, look at your own kids"

I think it's because in times of trouble we've prayed about stuff. They don't answer to me, they answer to God. But if they mess with my grandchildren, WRATH. TONS OF WRATH like they have never seen and they know it. 

And just by having met their big brother, spending time with him, wrestling with him, I'm certain they wouldn't abort any anyway. Or pressure a girl to abort hers.

If she aborts hers against their wishes, not a lot can be done about that. But if I hear they pressured any girl to abort, it's OVER. That's what happened to me, by so many, and if my sons do that to anyone else...wow. There will be consequences like never before.

Is all I'm sayin.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion?  As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months.  That seems to be the best place for sentience  my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.



That's the hard part. The issue is we aren't at the point that we know at what point we're dealing with a human life or just a sack of cells I, like most rationale people, believe that it occurs sometime during pregnancy. So the best you can do is draw a line at the latest point we know we're really just dealing with an organization of cells. The one thing I have come to change my mind about in this thread is Roe v. Wade, because I think for the most part they got it right. my position would be you can have an abortion anytime before the end of the first trimester for any reason, after that there needs to be an issue of the mother's health being in jeopardy. I would also be open to the idea of a separate law dealing specifically with illegal abortions.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> JenT please stop calling abortion murder, it isn't murder, is a freaking legal term, so to call it murder over and over is just emotional rhetoric.



FT, a rose is a rose by any other name. 

Just because the Supreme Court can't figure out that life = life, doesn't make the killing of that life any less murder. Legalized murder, does that help?

It's bad, FT, but in God's eyes lying is as bad as murder, it's all sin. I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad for anything they've done in the past. I have nothing but compassion for anyone that was deceived into believing a conceived child is just a disposable blob.

I think there are millions of remorse and grieving would-be-parents in this world, and I think they're carrying around a lot of guilt that they need to let go of. God is in control and He's already taken care of it, as far as the child goes. That's Biblical. 

But it is murder, FT, and anyone considering it should know that. At conception, they are who they are to be.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > So I look at my sons and tell them, DONT get anyone pregnant, but if you do, and my grandchild gets aborted, well, nobody has seen "wrath" from me before. Nobody had better ever harm any of my future grandchildren! If so, there WILL be consequences.





cute

and true


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Just to clarify, at what point would you place the line for illegal abortion?  As I said, I believe that the first trimester is a good point but could see it going out to 4 months maybe 5 but I am not sure I am all right with 5 months.  That seems to be the best place for sentience  my stance of why the line needs to be drawn.
> ...



If I could say how the law went, I wouldn't go after the mom at all. I'd nail the doctor to the wall, and anyone who made a profit at it as well. 

It's just like the drug addict and the drug dealer in my mind. Tons of compassion for the drug addict. The man making money at it though...that's a whole different duck.

And the pro-abortion politicians should be rounded up with them. But that can only happen in God's judgment.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > JenT please stop calling abortion murder, it isn't murder, is a freaking legal term, so to call it murder over and over is just emotional rhetoric.
> ...



And by definition abortion ain't murder. 

murder
noun
1. 	Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder). 

Murder Definition | Definition of Murder at Dictionary.com

The only other definitions are slang term for something difficult or a flock of crows.



JenT said:


> Just because the Supreme Court can't figure out that life = life, doesn't make the killing of that life any less murder. Legalized murder, does that help?


Legalized murder is an oxymoron.



JenT said:


> It's bad, FT, but in God's eyes lying is as bad as murder, it's all sin.



Your God has some screwy priorities if that's the case (although I fail to see the relevance because God doesn't write the laws around here).



JenT said:


> I'm not trying to make anyone feel bad for anything they've done in the past.



You could've fooled me.



JenT said:


> But it is murder, FT, and anyone considering it should know that. At conception, they are who they are to be.



It's not murder, you don't get to change the definition of murder to try make people think it's wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865820 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1864270 said:
> ...



That is where the terms "actively" and "self-defense" come into play.  I consider capital punishment to be self-defense on behalf of society.  And yes, by "kill" I DO mean ending the life of the organism.  And no, there is no "back to sentience and brain death".  "Actively kill" means deliberately ending someone's life yourself, as opposed to simply allowing the death that has already happened to finish running its course.  It's the difference between shutting off a respirator for someone whose brain is too far gone to control respiration on its own and putting a pillow over someone's face.  I have no problem with the first, but a very big problem with the second.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



The "law" that you think exonerates abortion of all criminal components is only the opinion of the majority sitting on the US Supreme Court. A court which is supposed to adhere to the Constitution. According to Judge Reinquist on that court:

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. . The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."​
And did you know that the Hypocratic Oath of doctors had to be changed in 1964 to allow abortion? Since the 4th Century BEFORE Christ, swearing to Greek gods: 

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.​
Abortion has been considered wrong throughout history until just lately. The Supreme Court rules and suddenly murder is not murder?

Only in the blind eyes of a deceived and murderous people.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > That's an old belief people used to have before they really understood brain function (not that we aren't still largely ignorant on that score, but we're closer). People believed that we were only using 10 percent of our brain and the potential of the rest was going untapped.
> ...



That supposes there's anything else in there to be tapped.


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > JenT said:
> ...



Oh I get it the opinions of the court only matter when they agree with you. Like it or not the Supreme Court gets the final ruling on matters of law.



> And did you know that the Hypocratic Oath of doctors had to be changed in 1964 to allow abortion? Since the 4th Century BEFORE Christ, swearing to Greek gods:
> 
> I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.​



This is relevant how?



> Abortion has been considered wrong throughout history until just lately.



OFFS not appeal to tradition crap. Slavery has existed throughout most of human history and was not gotten rid of in the US till relatively recently. 



> The Supreme Court rules and suddenly murder is not murder?



Yes, you see murder is a legal term and so they changed what constitutes murder. Legal definitions can change.



> Only in the blind eyes of a deceived and murderous people.



Or those who understand how law works.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > ...Again- Because now you are veering off topic as usual, Show me how a woman being forced through a 9 month pregnancy, all because she did not find out until the last day of the third trimester, can or SHOULD, TRANSFER her FETUS to another person.
> ...



So can pregnancies that result in rape, but that doesn't seem to generally apply here either. PS- Sex for sport is not going to stop any time in the forseeable future, so asking women to close their legs, is going to be fruitless. We are not the sexual gatekeepers. 



> Nope.. They have every right to make their own decisions in regards to this. Stop mischaracterizing my position.. It has gone beyond "little brother" annoying now. It is really REALLY sad and pathetic.


If I understand this right, it always amazes me. There's a LIFE at stake here. The selfish insistance of the mom that is facing consequences for playing around doesn't earn her the right to murder.

There are so many alternatives to that. 9 months is not a death sentence, only abortion is. [/quote]

Only in YOUR subjective opinion. In my opinion, 9 months can be a death sentence for a great deal of women. Maybe not in the physical sense, but in many other capacities, it is. 


> > This one is a physiological inevitability- a parent must take care of themselves, first, to be CAPABLE of caring for the kids. Go ahead and quote a portion of that one, too, so you can mischaracterize it, you social fucking reject.
> 
> 
> If you are incapable of caring for, or choose not to, there are LONG LINES of people anxiously waiting to adopt. Its not easy to give up a child for adoption, but if you really don't want it, there is always that option.



There are also long lines of people waiting for a surrogate parent.. Does that mean that because my body is CAPABLE of giving such a socialized service, that everyone else should inevitably be entitled to me doing such a thing? No. I dont CARE how many people WANT babies. They can just as easily adopt a 5 year old or a 12 year old, also. They don't NEED a fucking BABY, and they SURE dont need MINE, just because one existed in my uterus. Furthermore, this is not about DEATH, this is about PREGNANCY, and a woman being able to decide whether she wants to be IN that condition, for the apparent mental health of all of society, or not. 
It is just something that you are going to have to deal with if she chooses to NOT. 



> And when they grow up and look you in the eyes and say "thank you" and you see the reality of the person they have become, wow, there's just no question in my mind, abortion is just so wrong.



I have a son. Your emotional rhetoric means nothing to me, because my situation with my son, was much different than my situation with the pregnancy I terminated, which did NOT result in a baby, regardless of how or what you think. 



> But like I've written in columns, if you've already aborted and regret it now, don't beat yourself up, we were all young and deceived. God through Christ forgives and forgets and that child was never an accident, he or she IS with God. They've actually avoided the testing ground in a world that can be so painful.
> 
> God is just SO good.



I dont regret my abortion AT ALL. I think you probably regret your adoption though. How does it feel knowing that you have a child out there, who has to go through life not knowing his mother and father, and apparently, grandparents, and feeling unwanted, at least by those people? All because YOU were too selfish to talk to your dad's parents, or go out of YOUR way and find a family that was close to your own family, so that you could be a part of that child's life?
Don't talk to me about selfishness, or keeping your legs closed, when it is clear to me that you are the only one between the two of us who was unscrupulous enough to make ALL of those decisions based SOLELY on how YOU felt, and not how everyone around you would feel, or help, or survive, as well. I, personally, did not MAKE my decision without thinking about everyone involved first. Lucky for me, I do not have to WORRY about it, because MY decision did not AFFECT a sentient individual the way yours obviously did!!!
This is total bullshit, and as long as you are spreading propaganda that you selfishly deem to be moral FOR YOU ALONE, then anyone else making a decision that is for THEM alone is justified in the same way. Period.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ad Hominems do nothing to further your argument.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > JenT said:
> ...



Once they are born, only THEN do they BECOME your grandchildren, and even still, you will even be SO lucky to not be in an experience like what Jen T was in, and have to never know whether the girl gave them up for adoption, like Jen did, or aborted. Your son's girlfriend's bodies do not belong to you, so staking a claim on them is impossible. 



> heh, and my kids know I'm a pushover when they disobey me. I've never been very strict or punitive with them at all and I haven't had to, they always amaze me. Their teachers have told me... let's just say my kids have sterling reputations, even though lately they've gotten into a little trouble, lol, let's just say nobody can point their fingers at my kids and say "how dare you criticize the schools, look at your own kids"



Thats good, but irrelevant.. 



> I think it's because in times of trouble we've prayed about stuff. They don't answer to me, they answer to God. But if they mess with my grandchildren, WRATH. TONS OF WRATH like they have never seen and they know it.



You are aware, Miss God Fearing Christian, that Wrath is a deadly sin, right? 
As is preaching about it.. 


> And just by having met their big brother, spending time with him, wrestling with him, I'm certain they wouldn't abort any anyway. Or pressure a girl to abort hers.



LOL!! Because wrestling her brother is SOOOO indicative of her stance on abortion, or how she would react if she had an unwanted pregnancy. OKAY. 



> If she aborts hers against their wishes, not a lot can be done about that. But if I hear they pressured any girl to abort, it's OVER. That's what happened to me, by so many, and if my sons do that to anyone else...wow. There will be consequences like never before.
> 
> Is all I'm sayin.




Ahh so YOU are mad because YOU were pressured into having an abortion, signing an informed consent form, etc, with some kind of gun to your head (NOT) and now you want to blame your sons for that?? 

Sick!!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Boy was that VAGUE!!!!
> 
> So, you're still not answering the question, ey, Bernie??? LMAO!!! Figures!!



Who are you responding to here? I don't see the vagueness in my response. I have quite directly answered your questions. Perhaps you would see that if you actually replied to MY response to you (post 410) rather than going through someone else's response to me. Quid pro quo dear. You make an awful lot of demands and presumptions of other people but apparently what you demand of others does not apply to you in turn.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865820 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What of allowing someone to die who could be saved? At what point does failing to help someone become killing them? if I have a celox plunger some duct tape, a square of plastic sheeting, and the know-how, at what point does not controlling the bleeding and applying a butterfly valve become comparable less to removing the respirator on a braindead person and more like turning it off in the ambulance en route to medical care tpo save their life?

At what point does walking away from someone hanging off a cliff become tantamount to stepping on their fingers?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I must have faith in human potential...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Only in YOUR subjective opinion. In my opinion, 9 months can be a death sentence for a great deal of women. Maybe not in the physical sense, but in many other capacities, it is.




Yeah, it just *kills* their love life 


> I dont regret my abortion AT ALL.



Then why have you spent this entire thread and the fetus in a box thread trying to justify it to yourself and deny that your child was a live and that you killed it?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
> ...


That's not an ad hom, it's an insult, you twit.

Back to you skipping English class....


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866349 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



In this case, the insult was made as an attempt to discredit an argument, twit.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866349 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wrong again, genius. It was simply an insult-cum-valid observation about your insufficient intellect.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866348 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Only in YOUR subjective opinion. In my opinion, 9 months can be a death sentence for a great deal of women. Maybe not in the physical sense, but in many other capacities, it is.
> ...



Actually, most people enjoy the freedom of not having to worry about getting pregnant, and have MORE sex than usual when they are pregnant.

Some, however, have to deal with an immediate career change as a result of being pregnant. For instance, women are often questioned when they are entering politics on whether they plan on undergoing any pregnancies during their term. Females who race cars as either a profession or a hobby, generally would have to stop taking part in this aspect of their lives. Models and actresses are highly affected by pregnancy, if they have not yet made themselves famous. Even after becoming famous, the female form is so highly regarded, that their career may go kersplat as a result of the pregnancy. Other examples of professions in which pregnancy is not an option is with physicists of all sorts- as well as even the farmer's widowed wife, or heirs to companies, including highly successful ones, which can lose a lot of money due to shareholders selling, because they are scared that the new CEO is not going to focus on the company. That, and family businesses like a little restaurant, and having to suddenly take care of it, as well any other family, and having a pregnancy, just do not go together very well. 
I could sit here and list a thousand valid reasons why someone might opt for an abortion after the first trimester ends, but what good would it do? You do not look at the big picture, at all, anyways, no matter how many times it is presented to you. Your mind is made up. 
If you had a uterus, then maybe you could understand better that it is indeed a woman's property, and not the property of the masses, so they do not have any right to make any decision regarding her uterus.. 

[





> quote]
> I dont regret my abortion AT ALL.


Then why have you spent this entire thread and the fetus in a box thread trying to justify it to yourself and deny that your child was a live and that you killed it?[/quote]

The same reason YOU have. I feel strongly that a woman has the right to make her own decisions. You feel adamantly against that. YOU do not need to have faced making a decision like that to have an opinion about it, and neither does anyone else. Just because I am your strongest opponent, does not mean that I am your opponent because I somehow regret my abortion, you dillhole.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Boy was that VAGUE!!!!
> ...



I do not want women to be prosecuted for abortion. Hence, it DOES NOT apply to me, that I expect YOU to back your own claim up that abortion after a certain point should be punished, and asking you exactly HOW that would happen. 

Sooooo Answer the question! How should she be punished? You have been REALLY specific as to when abortion should be illegal, so you MUST know that being ILLEGAL means that it is PUNISHABLE. 
Specifically, HOW would a woman who broke this law be punished???

Specifically. 

Specifically. 

Specifically. 

Lather, rinse, and fucking repeat.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I again refer you to post 410. I'm not going to re-type all of that because you're lazy. On top of which I have some SPECIFIC questions for you. Again quid pro quo dear.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



JD, you have some long posts, so do I. I haven't read all of yours, you haven't read mine. I think that explains why you seem to be getting really confused in this last post. You're responding to "JenT" and talking to me "JenT" as though we're different people. 

Second, I didn't have an abortion, so no I'm not mad that I was pressured into having an abortion, I sold everything I had and bought a one way bus ticket instead. I was rather ticked off at a woman that told me to have an abortion because I wasn't married though, just because I wasn't married didn't mean her child should live and mine should die. 

And it was my plan prior to getting pregnant, to have an abortion. Like everyone else, I bought into the lie. I just couldn't go through with it. Held some hands for friends though that did. A lot of them are really bitter that prince charming never came along and they never had more. I don't blame them in the slightest. They were deceived. We all were.

We were all once a couple of cells. And my grandchildren in the womb are still my grandchildren in the womb. If that ever happens, it's a piece of my son, my very own flesh and blood in that woman's womb. There are genes of MINE in that womb. I can't stop her from killing it if she chooses, but if she does, she IS killing a part of ME. That's REALITY. Because at the point of conception, it's already decided if he or she will look like me, will laugh like me, what hair color they will have, what eyes, personality, all of it. 

My sons won't be able to stop her either, thanks to the murderous laws of this country. But if he pressures her to abort, I don't think there is much they could do that would hurt me worse. But I think they know better. I think they know that if it came to it, I'd be grateful for that child and they could continue on with college or whatever it is they're doing and still have a child. They really are amazing blessings, ya know. And yes, I do regret having given up my first son for adoption, very much so. But looking at him today, the thought of aborting him...its just not an option. And nobody, NOBODY, should have given me that option when I was young, weak, vulnerable and insecure.

As soon as we're pregnant, our hormones go WILD. We're emotional rollercoasters for a couple of months. Pressuring or leading a woman to make that choice at that time is, IMO, lower than dirt. 

It's a life. You act as though at that point it's a choice but at that point it's already a fact of LIFE. You're choosing to destroy what already is. It's not a crossroads, it's a cessation. And it's murder.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

But I can't say it's "murder" and leave it at that. There are way too many women who have chosen to do that who are paying a huge price, and I sure don't want to add to their sorrows, I'm just hoping people will think twice before doing that.

God said 

_I chose you when I planned creation&#8230;
Ephesians 1:11-12

 You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in My book&#8230;
Psalm 139:15-16

I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live&#8230;
Acts 17:26

You are fearfully and wonderfully made&#8230;
Psalm 139:15-16

I knit you together in your mother&#8217;s womb
Psalm 139:13

And brought you forth on the day you were born&#8230;
Psalm 71:6_​
As far as the past goes, God has always known what would happen, did that stop Him from creating that little one? no. Because eternity with God is NOT a bad thing, it rocks, and an aborted baby is no less with Him, in fact, IMO he or she has been secured a place with Him. I think they'll be given a different time to choose God, because there needs to be a choice. I think that's why there will be a "millenium", a thousand years after which Satan is released again for a short time so that all those who didn't get to choose, be it from abortion or being born with a mental problem, whatever reason, being with God for eternity is a choice and I believe what this life is all about.

Death is a RELEASE from a life where pain and evil and all kinds of hardships and trials happen to us. Aborted children circumvent all that for another time, but our actions of not allowing them to live, or contracting social diseases because of promiscuity, or lying or stealing or lusting, THIS life is the opportunity to settle all of that through Christ. So any mom that beats herself up for our past doesn't need to. Look at Paul, he hunted down and KILLED, MURDERED, countless Christians before Christ appeared to him and asked why he was persecuting Him. Receiving Christ rocked Paul's life and he went on to write most of the New Testament. 

This life is a vapor, it's a one inch dash on a tombstone between born and died. But it's our chance to get to know our Creator. That's all it is. And I believe all aborted children will have another chance. I believe they're in a far better place right now than where we are today...or where Obama is leading us (shudder)

God does NOT want any of us living in guilt. It's why He sent the Savior.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Hmmm.  Shall I listen to the medical dictionary, or shall I listen to the woman who thinks humans and dogs can interbreed?  Oh, the difficult decisions!

Conception definition - Medical Dictionary definitions of popular medical terms easily defined on MedTerms

Conception: 1. The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
2. The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
> ...



What on Earth made you think that you were worthy of an actual ARGUMENT from me?  Please understand that you are not a debate opponent to me.  You are an object of ridicule and scorn, to be mocked and sneered at for my amusement.  I have had less respect for you and the value of your existence than you have for unborn children along about the time you confidently informed the world that dogs can impregnate humans.  You flatter yourself greatly every time you arrogantly assert that you are in any way worthwhile or meaningful, let alone enough to warrant the death of an unborn child in order to accommodate you.

By the way, since your character IS the issue at hand, due to the fact that your contentions reveal a disturbing lack of both character AND intelligence, my attacks cannot possibly be _ad hominem_, so please stop misusing the word in a vain attempt to sound educated.  If you wanted to impress us, your opportunity passed a long time ago, never to return.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866336 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865820 said:
> ...



Short answer:  It doesn't.

Longer answer: there is a reason why the law differentiates between negligent homicide and murder.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866340 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1865825 said:
> ...



In this case, I think you qualify as a pie-eyed optimist.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866349 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, it wasn't, because it wasn't made to you.  It was made to someone else ABOUT you, and it was intended to mock you for the laughingstock you have become.

Your arguments discredit themselves.  All I have to do at this point is sit back and snicker.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Females who race cars as either a profession or a hobby, generally would have to stop taking part in this aspect of their live.



And? If they don't want to have a pregnancy interupt their career, they should try any of the fabulous medical advancements collectively known as birth control. Did youknow it's possible to ahve less than a half-dozen cycles a year or even make it so you never have to worry about getting pregnant in your life? it's true! And there are foams and oils and lubes that kill sperm!!!! And if a condom breaks or you miss a dose, you can take a super-dose of B.C. and prevent impregnation. Honestly! It's really true! People call it' Plan B'!

A lot has changed since the 50's! You should join us in 2010- there're all kinds of amazing things!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> > Then why have you spent this entire thread and the fetus in a box thread trying to justify it to yourself and deny that your child was alive and that you killed it
> 
> 
> The same reason YOU have.




I never killed any child of mine.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866336 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We'll have to address this in more detail in another thread. I think we could get some interesting discourse going.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866787 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Females who race cars as either a profession or a hobby, generally would have to stop taking part in this aspect of their live.
> ...



Great theory...but birth control is not 100% effective, I used birth control with all three of my kids (okay the last was a lame attempt at the rythm method, heh) But with the second I used TWO (YES CORRECTLY) because I was so paranoid about unexpected pregnancies


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866787 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If you use condoms + spermicidal lube + spermicidal foam + Plan b and *still* get pregnant, you either abort in the early stages as I and others have said or you accept that your deity of choice really wants you to have a child.

There is one means of prevention that's 100% effective, if you absolutely positively want to make sure you don't get pregnant.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

JenT said:


> But I can't say it's "murder" and leave it at that. There are way too many women who have chosen to do that who are paying a huge price, and I sure don't want to add to their sorrows, I'm just hoping people will think twice before doing that.
> 
> God said
> 
> ...


_

_NOT a literal verse.





> You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in My book
> Psalm 139:15-16



Specifically, 120, as was told to Moses when the flood was in the planing stages. Again, this is not a verse to mean that even one person was being spoken directly about. This is God saying that MAN is not a mistake, in general. ​


> I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live
> Acts 17:26



Which any doctor, or mother can do, also, so no relevance here, either. ​


> You are fearfully and wonderfully made
> Psalm 139:15-16



This is another thing that any mother and father could say to their children. ​



> I knit you together in your mothers womb
> Psalm 139:13



How could this be a literal verse, unless you can visualize God with knitting needles, and those needles being thrust into a woman's body? 
However, I do not discount that God has a plan and that he knows which pregnancies will come to term, and which will not. ​


> And brought you forth on the day you were born
> Psalm 71:6



Now THIS is better.. because even though a woman can say this also, this is alluding to God doing something beyond birthing the child- He give us life, by blowing air into us, for us to have the "breath of life", and causing us to become alive. ​


> As far as the past goes, God has always known what would happen, did that stop Him from creating that little one? no.



Yes. He often caused women to have "miscarrying wombs", in fact. Why would he cause a woman to miscarry something he created and treasures?



> Because eternity with God is NOT a bad thing, it rocks, and an aborted baby is no less with Him, in fact, IMO he or she has been secured a place with Him.



Not really. Miscarried fetuses "never had knowledge" and "never saw light", from God's own inspired word of the bible. 

Job 3:16 "Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light.Ecclesiastes 4:2,3 And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living,who are still alive. 2 But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.Isaiah 14:20 "You will not be united with them in burial, Because you have ruined your country, You have slain your people. May the offspring of evildoers not be mentioned forever.


> I think they'll be given a different time to choose God, because there needs to be a choice. I think that's why there will be a "millenium", a thousand years after which Satan is released again for a short time so that all those who didn't get to choose, be it from abortion or being born with a mental problem, whatever reason, being with God for eternity is a choice and I believe what this life is all about.



New International Version (©1984)
Ecclesiastes 3:19
Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. (in vanity)



> Death is a RELEASE from a life where pain and evil and all kinds of hardships and trials happen to us. Aborted children circumvent all that for another time, but our actions of not allowing them to live, or contracting social diseases because of promiscuity, or lying or stealing or lusting, THIS life is the opportunity to settle all of that through Christ. So any mom that beats herself up for our past doesn't need to. Look at Paul, he hunted down and KILLED, MURDERED, countless Christians before Christ appeared to him and asked why he was persecuting Him. Receiving Christ rocked Paul's life and he went on to write most of the New Testament.



BULLSHIT. You have been deceived by Satan, it appears. DEATH is the ENEMY. Satan wants you to believe that death can have some positive connotation to it, so that he can lure you towards it. 

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one *...*                                                Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and *death* through
 sin, and in this way *death* came                      to all men, because all sinned *...* 
[SIZE=-1]//bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] - 16k[/SIZE]

(and if you are unaware, sin was caused because Satan lured the good people towards his evil way.. And they already knew that the punishment would be death, so, like you, Adam and Eve chose Death (Satan's way) over God.)



> This life is a vapor, it's a one inch dash on a tombstone between born and died. But it's our chance to get to know our Creator. That's all it is. And I believe all aborted children will have another chance. I believe they're in a far better place right now than where we are today...or where Obama is leading us (shudder)



I am so sorry that you have been deceived to think this. I beg of you to please study ALL parts of your bible, not JUST the ones that the baptist preacher or the anti abortion propaganda machine tells you about. 



> God does NOT want any of us living in guilt. It's why He sent the Savior.



That doesn't mean that we are entitled to sin, either. Boy oh boy..


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
			
		

> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866787 said:
> ...



Actually, abstinence has been found to be overall highly ineffective, according to the related studies. 

It's like attempting to rebuild a dam of Hoover proportions, after it has already been broken.. HIGHLY improbable that a little water won't seep through, or that the rebuilding will be at all successful. 

Also, people who are married are not going to forego sex just because YOU have a problem with abortion.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866787 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Females who race cars as either a profession or a hobby, generally would have to stop taking part in this aspect of their live.
> ...



Yes I am aware.. But YOU are the one with a problem with women having so few periods, and not testing themselves every fucking week, just based on them being sexually active, finding out they are pregnant, and using their option to abort in the 4th fucking month. That is all YOU. Honestly!! The reason those abortions are so rare, is because many second trimester abortions ARE by women who are on birth control, and were not informed about their antibiotic contraindication for BC effectiveness. It's REALLY TRUE. Why would someone use Plan B, when they are already ON birth control??? And why SHOULD any woman be subjected to using foams and jellies EVERY TIME they have sex, effectively spending literally thousands of dollars a year on birth control, which might not even WORK, when there are ALSO plenty of ANCIENT methods that MEN can use as well, that are FREE????? Like sitting in a hot tub, for instance!! Don't want a pregnancy- have your man sit in a HOT (108 degrees or higher) bathtub for a half an hour every night, for three weeks, then follow up with a 15 minute a night sit, after that. Why does NOBODY care about the MANS RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS HIS OWN ACTIONS????



> A lot has changed since the 50's! You should join us in 2010- there're all kinds of amazing things!



Not much has really changed.. except that birth control is now dosed at a LOWER potency. Even in the 1950s, a woman could get birth control pills (same damn thing as plan b)  and abortions and all that stuff..  Whether it was legal or not, doesn't REALLY matter. Even today, some women will pay other women for a few of their own prescription of birth control, to which the original woman only has to say that their prescription fell in the sink, or tub, etc, and ask for an early refill. NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED INDEED.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Actually, abstinence has been found to be overall highly ineffective, according to the related studies.







Abstinence is the single most successful method of preventing pregnancy. No sex, no baby*. 


Artificial insemination excluded


> .
> It's like attempting to rebuild a dam of Hoover proportions, after it has already been broken.. HIGHLY improbable that a little water won't seep through, or that the rebuilding will be at all successful.



Huh? So the guy's cum leaks... into your vagina... through your clothes...? WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Really?  Please show us the study indicating that a large number of women get pregnant while abstaining from sex.  So far as I was aware, there has only been one, and it was under rather special circumstances.



JD_2B said:


> It's like attempting to rebuild a dam of Hoover proportions, after it has already been broken.. HIGHLY improbable that a little water won't seep through, or that the rebuilding will be at all successful.



I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, but I suspect you have no idea, either.



JD_2B said:


> Also, people who are married are not going to forego sex just because YOU have a problem with abortion.



Yes, how silly to expect people to be responsible and care about the sanctity of life when they're horny and want to fuck.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
			
		

> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866787 said:
> ...



Cost of pro's assertion that women should have to use all of that stuff:

Plan B: 45 dollars, if you get it cheap. Otherwise, it can cost in upwards of 65 dollars. 

Spermicidal foam: About 10 dollars for a pack of about 6
Spermicidal "lube" (jelly): Another 10 dollars, for a pack of about 6
Condoms: Free if you live near a health center that distributes free condoms, and for 85% of the rest of the country, about 7 dollars for 12. 

Soooo.. $2.50 just to have sex.. 
Plan B, taken twice a week (it can be taken within 92 hours of sex, so this would be all a person would "need" to take it to avoid pregnancy)- $90- $130 a week, considering the person has sex even twice a week, every few days. 

Let's now put this all together.. Someone who ONLY has sex two times a week would be spending no less than $92.50 a week to APPEASE PRO, and people like him.. 
Which amounts to $4,810.00 a year...  

Considering that a new car can be purchased for, oh let's even make it something better than a $10,000 buy one get one free Kia deal, and say it costs 14K for a new compact car-

14,000/12= 1,166 a month for ONE year... OR 291.66 on a four year payment plan. 

$291.66 a month for a CAR PAYMENT is CHEAPER than the best enjoyed, most looked forward to activity in any couple's life, by Pro's terms, and that would be HAVING "RESPONSIBLE" SEX, which would cost that same couple a whopping $400.88 a month, BY PRO's TERMS.

Sorry, but you actually just sold me on stopping using protection altogether. Honestly, I could still disregard Plan B, and go on birth control, which, combined with all the other expectations of using a few back ups, like the foam, the jelly, and the condom, would still bring my grand total of monthly "sexpenses" to be over $66 a month, and THAT is because it is with a cheap birth control option from Planned Parenthood, where I would also be paying a "meager" $65 dollar visit fee, therefore adding an additional six dollars to my monthly  The average person who does not have planned parenthood nearby, would spend upwards of 150-200 dollars on the doctor's visit (if they do not have insurance, which many many people do not have insurance, or do not want to go through their parent's insurance, to keep things private)  in addition to a monthly expense of up to 60 dollars per month, and that is assuming that their original prescription was of the right strength, and that she does not have an adverse reaction to it, and have to go to the Doctor's office or ER, as a result. 

In any event, she may have some other expenses that take priority, so there is no guarantee that she will be capable of spending 40-70 dollars extra a month to appease your evil little plan. 
 In fact, even at the lowest end possible, of 40 dollars, just at the retail store a month, SORRY but in 10 months, that cost could easily pay for a first trimester abortion, which you apparently support anyways. 
And depending on the situation, if the woman has to spend an hour in the car to GET to that store, even once a month, then you are looking at another 15-20 dollars per month in fuel costs...  Which, again, could be saved and used for such things as furry handcuffs, tasty body paints, and lingerie, and other such things that people who actually have sex are far more prone to buying ANYWAYS. 


 LMFAO!!!


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



but then there is the cost of your herpes , syphilis and aids treatments..better re-think that one


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
> ...



Sure!! Not a problem..
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Sc..._Prevention_Programs__A_Systematic_Review.pdf


> Pg. 77
> 
> In addition, the study comparing an abstinence-
> plus and an abstinence-only program found that although
> ...





> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > It's like attempting to rebuild a dam of Hoover proportions, after it has already been broken.. HIGHLY improbable that a little water won't seep through, or that the rebuilding will be at all successful.
> ...


It means that once someone has had sex, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove such a memory or unquenchable desire from that person. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, people who are married are not going to forego sex just because YOU have a problem with abortion.
> ...


Yeah, maybe you should try to pass some law that says that anyone who is sexually active must keep images of aborted fetuses above the bed, as a reminder that YOU subjectively think that they are "people"..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I wish I could say that it's a shock to me that you don't write or understand plain English, but it really isn't.

You said nothing about "abstinence programs", and neither did I.  You said "abstinence is ineffective", and thereby made yourself sound like a damned fool.  Again.  If you're talking about people who are told to abstain and don't, then it's not ABSTINENCE that isn't working as birth control because THEY AREN'T USING ABSTINENCE.  Duhh.



JD_2B said:


> Also, people who are married are not going to forego sex just because YOU have a problem with abortion.



Yes, how silly to expect people to be responsible and care about the sanctity of life when they're horny and want to fuck.  [/quote]Yeah, maybe you should try to pass some law that says that anyone who is sexually active must keep images of aborted fetuses above the bed, as a reminder that YOU subjectively think that they are "people"..  [/QUOTE]

I don't subjectively think they're people.  I objectively think they are because science says so.  YOU subjectively think they aren't because you desperately need to pretend you're a good person instead of a selfish sack of dung.

When in doubt, look at the motive.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 3, 2010)

Below is is post 410 in it's entirety with your requested answers.



JD_2B said:


> Do you or don't you want women to be criminalized for obtaining (illegal) abortions outside of your subjective field of acceptance? Answer the question.



Yes I think ANYONE that takes another innocent human life should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. The real question is why don't you believe that?



JD_2B said:


> If a woman decided to abort a pregnancy, during the time when the fetus is deemed to be potentially conscious, and was therefore illegal, what should her punishment be? Can you ANSWER that?



She should or could be charged from anything from manslaughter to murder, the punishment for which will very depending on the circumstances.



JD_2B said:


> Because really, we have been discussing the rest for weeks, and no matter what response I have given you, your ultimate retort will be that it is *I* who is being illogical, even despite the fact that the only "evidence" you have given on fetal sentience has been inconclusive. Clearly, neither of us can prove that any event, either scientific or divine, happens at the moment of birth and breathing.



If that were the case that would force you to admit that the possibility exists you are taking another human life. Curious that you are okay with that risk In truth though you can't keep waffling between terms. You have stated before that sentience really doesn't matter to you from a legal perspective. So YOU answer a direct question: At what point should a woman be prosecuted for killing her child?




JD_2B said:


> I will admit that my belief that the baby is sentient at birth is PARTIALLY religious in nature, but that makes no difference in the discussion whatsoever, being that your belief that killing is wrong, is also religious in nature as well.



I haven't brought up my religious beliefs once in this thread that I am aware of. AGAIN it is you doing the bulk of the baseless presuming dear. My beliefs about killing an innocent human life does not come from what any religion tells me about the matter. Personally I find people who's morality is guided by religion to be rather weak minded. The rest of your bull shit argument about my position being religious wether I recognize it or not is just that, bull shit. To contend that is to contend that without religion humans can not distinguish between right and wrong.



JD_2B said:


> The question of abortion *being illegal* is ABSOLUTELY a question of how you think the woman should be punished. Answer the question.



Done




JD_2B said:


> No! I just SAID that this was a PERSONAL view. Women should not be criminalized for.......



I haven't posted any sources in this thread at all. You're thinking of prolet, I believe.



JD_2B said:


> How would she be punished if this sort of thing was TRULY considered "murder", in your opinion? How do you think the woman should be punished for making this decision? Answer.



The same way any person is punished for murder. I suppose in the court system it could actually range from anything from manslaughter to pre-meditated murder depending on the circumstances. The punishment of which would be whatever the legal statutes are for that charge. That is all dependent of course on the a child being given legal status that would warrant those charges, but assuming it was, why would the punishment be any different for killing an unborn human being than killing a born one?



JD_2B said:


> And no study or source you have found has shown that this type of activity exists pre-birth, but in SEVERAL of your sources, you have shown that pre term infants DO show better reactions than their fetal counterparts. YOU showed this. YOU are the only one who is solidifying MY arguments, through your own half assed, despondent attempts at belittling them, all because you cannot deal with this EMOTIONALLY.
> 
> I realize that a 9 month gestated fetus looks like and is the same size as a 3 week old preemie that was born three weeks early. The three week OLD baby shows MORE response than the fetus does. YOUR SOURCES SAY SO.
> My opinion is that there is a higher power that neither one of us might ever understand or fully grasp, at work here. There is NO explanation of logic as to why and how this phenomenon occurs. That does not make it impossible. And YOUR sources PROVE that.



yeah....not me again. I'm not sure I care what the sources say. I only maintain that your extreme stance isn't logical to me. You see your argument renders what the sources say irrelevent. I don't have to prove they're right. All I have to do is make a decent argument that you are not. The only problem is I'm not sure you even know what your position is considering how much back and forth you've done on it. So I again ask at what point if any, should a woman be prosecuted for killing her children?



JD_2B said:


> Social dependence does not equal physical dependence. You cannot get past the fact that physical dependence for a fetus is a reliance on the mother being alive, period. Socially, the person caring for a baby can die, and the baby will still live for an indefinite period of time. Truly, you need to get PAST this.



From the perspective of the child no I don't believe there is a difference. No child before the age of about 3 (before including just post conception) will survive long without SOMEONE caring for it. YOU made the assertion that a justification for abortion is that the fetus is this 'thing' that is wholly dependent on you for survival and thus has no rights of it's own. All I am trying to get across is that relatively speaking their is little difference in the level of dependence a child has on SOMEONE to insure its survival pre-birth or post-birth







JD_2B said:


> Ah a sociological conundrum. Actually, because there are so many people in society who do not want to have more biological children, or cannot have biological children, then surrogate parents are often used, and even more than this, mothers (and fathers) who are carrying a fetus will sign papers voluntarily giving their child, once born alive, the parental rights to that child. Society DOES make the choice. OFTEN. I have a "long lost Aunt" who we found out lives in Scotland. The story goes like this: My grandfather used to beat my grandma. My grandma, at one point, needed some friendly good touch, and love.. She went off and fell in love with another guy, while she was married to the shitstain we DONT really call "gramps". (I refer to him as Harry). This was in the 1940s. She already had three kids, and knew that she could not go home to Harry with a bulging belly, so she asked a friend to take care of one of her existing three girls. (My Aunt). So the friends adopted her. My grandma moved somewhere (I have no idea where). My Aunt was never really happy with the situation, but seems to be a happy, well adjusted adult, with a full family who loves her, now. She wants nothing to do with our family, of course. The feelings involved with being "given up" are very much akin to "unwantedness", even though the family that cared for her and loved her, definitely did WANT her. The choice was not pushed on them. It was voluntary.
> Society does not take kids based on involuntary servitude.
> Furthermore, to claim that a woman who is 8 or 9 months pregnant should not abort, along with these statements above, is much akin to saying that she should not put the child up for adoption, also. What is WRONG with this picture? Talk about lacking logic. Good Grief!!!



That long winded BS doesn't mean adoption is off the table. This is real simple JD. Again presuming you believe a child is a human being at some point pre-birth, all that is being argued is that you don't have the right to murder that child without being prosecuted.




JD_2B said:


> And having consensual sex, and being a person who does not have a period but every few months, one might not ever notice that they even missed one to begin with. Women are not, and should not be prosecuted for being sexually active, just because YOU think that they should be taking a weekly fucking pregnancy test.. My word. The only arguments for negative actions you are even discussing here is the sole fact that MOST women do not sit there and test themselves for pregnancy every freaking week. Get through it!! That is PREPOSTEROUS AND OUTRAGEOUS!!!



Why is it preposterous or outrageous for a woman to find out if an outcome she KNOWS is possible, a life changing outcome at that, has actually happened? What fucking sense does it make to go through everything you went through, when it could have been prevented so much sooner by simply taking a pregnancy test? Forget our disagreement for a moment on what you and I consider irresponsible behavior, doesn't it just plain make the most sense to find out as soon as possible?



JD_2B said:


> Ok so how should women who abort in the 4th month be punished then?? Go ahead, and answer the question.



Depends on whether the child could be considered a human life at that point. The science isn't quite there yet on that issue. As I said above. I don't find it relevant to your position because in your position the justification for abortion doesn't stop at that point in time. I have gathered it stops after the baby is born and it may not even matter whether it is human life before that to you as a legal issue.



JD_2B said:


> Oh really- please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us? YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LOGICAL ANSWER.



Oh for the love of Pete. Last time. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL SPOKESPERSONS, SALESPERSONS, CHAIRPERSONS, ETC. ARE ALL PERSONS, IS A TRUE STATEMENT? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOU SAID, THAT ALL PERSONS ARE SALESPERSONS, CHAIRPERSONS, ETC., IS NOT A TRUE STATEMENT?


----------



## eots (Jan 3, 2010)

> Yeah, maybe you should try to pass some law that says that anyone who is sexually active must keep images of aborted fetuses above the bed, as a reminder that YOU subjectively think that they are "people"..



now you are thinking...how much guilt you must carry from your abortion..its OK..there is redemption ...God still loves you


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Plan B: 45 dollars, if you get it cheap. Otherwise, it can cost in upwards of 65 dollars.



Cost of not fucking: Free

Cost of Plan B in case of assault: free at a growing number of hospitals and clinics.


> Spermicidal foam: About 10 dollars for a pack of about 6



Cost of not fucking: Free.



> Spermicidal "lube" (jelly): Another 10 dollars, for a pack of about 6



Cost of not fucknig: Free


> Condoms: Free if you live near a health center that distributes free condoms, and for 85% of the rest of the country, about 7 dollars for 12.



Or 10 for a dollar.

Cost of not fucking: Free

Cost of engaging in other forms of sexual contact than penile-vaginal intercourse: Free


> Plan B, taken twice a week



If you're that much of a whore and too stupid to use other methods, then I have no pity on you.


> In any event, she may have some other expenses that take priority, so there is no guarantee that she will be capable of spending 40-70 dollars extra



Then she should have guys cumming in her if she's not responsible enough to take precautionary measures or care for a child.


Two words:
Personal responsibility



> Which, again, could be saved and used for such things as furry handcuffs, tasty body paints, and lingerie



Again,

Personal responsibility


----------



## Father Time (Jan 3, 2010)

Or there's always adoption if worse comes to worse.

Or the dreaded option D

Have enough kids to get your own reality TV show.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> NOT a literal verse.You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in My book
> Specifically, 120, as was told to Moses when the flood was in the planing stages. Again, this is not a verse to mean that even one person was being spoken directly about. This is God saying that MAN is not a mistake, in general.
> 
> Which any doctor, or mother can do, also, so no relevance here, either.
> ...




All of the above that you're parsing over are from "Father's Love Letter"
Father's Love Letter Instrumental Version
They are not exact quotes but are what the prophets are writing about as God sees us. 



> > Quote:
> > And brought you forth on the day you were born
> > Psalm 71:6
> 
> ...



NO WHERE does God say the life of the infant begins with his first breath. God breathed life into Adam because Adam was not born from a womb. Those are not dead babies in our wombs waiting for their first breath to come alive.



> > Quote:
> > As far as the past goes, God has always known what would happen, did that stop Him from creating that little one? no.
> 
> 
> Yes. He often caused women to have "miscarrying wombs", in fact. Why would he cause a woman to miscarry something he created and treasures?



Where does it say God caused a miscarriage? I don't remember ever reading that. God opens and shuts wombs, as in Sarah and conception, but I believe miscarriages are a result of the fall. 



> Not really. Miscarried fetuses "never had knowledge" and "never saw light", from God's own inspired word of the bible.
> 
> Job 3:16 "Or like a miscarriage which is discarded, I would not be, As infants that never saw light.Ecclesiastes 4:2,3 And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living,who are still alive. 2 But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun.Isaiah 14:20 "You will not be united with them in burial, Because you have ruined your country, You have slain your people. May the offspring of evildoers not be mentioned forever.



You are quoting Job cursing the day he was born. If you back up to the beginning you will see he begins by cursing the day he was conceived. You support what I'm saying with this:

_1 After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. And Job spoke, and said:
May the day perish on which I was born,
And the night in which it was said, 
* A male child is conceived.*
 May that day be darkness;
 May God above not seek it, 
Nor the light shine upon it._​


> New International Version (©1984)
> Ecclesiastes 3:19
> Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. (in vanity)



You're quoting Ecclesiastes, who is having a meltdown about EVERYTHING through the whole book because he has absolutely everything he could possibly want, treasures and riches and women beyond wildest dreams, and he's BORED. The whole book is about his dissatisfaction.

But I think you quoted out of context what he said about animals and men.  

_18 I said in my heart, Concerning the condition of the sons of men, *God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.* For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; *man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.* All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. * Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?* _​
Solomon is just saying he has all this wisdom and it's still not enough. Then later he says:

_"God's ways are as hard to discern as the pathways of the wind, *and as mysterious as a tiny baby being formed in a mother's womb."*_​
Then his final conclusion after a whole book about not knowing enough and how everything is so boring, he writes:

"13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
      Fear God and keep His commandments, 
      For this is mans all. 
      For God will bring every work into judgment, 
      Including every secret thing, 
      Whether good or evil. "​


> BULLSHIT. You have been deceived by Satan, it appears. DEATH is the ENEMY. Satan wants you to believe that death can have some positive connotation to it, so that he can lure you towards it.



_ 54 Death is swallowed up in victory.
 O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?
The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Cor 15_​
and there are all kinds of verses about trading our bodies in to be like Him. 

_18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans)

21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. (Phil 1)_​


> Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one *...*                                                Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and *death* through
> sin, and in this way *death* came                      to all men, because all sinned *...*
> [SIZE=-1]//bible.cc/romans/5-12.htm[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] - 16k[/SIZE]



But read on! Death and sin came into the world through Adam at the fall, but Christ bought us back again for those who receive Him. That's the message of the Gospel, the Good News.



> (and if you are unaware, sin was caused because Satan lured the good people towards his evil way.. And they already knew that the punishment would be death, so, like you, Adam and Eve chose Death (Satan's way) over God.)



nooooooo, Eve was deceived with Satan's line that she would be like God. It was a half truth, that's why we need to know what God says, so we don't fall for this stuff. Adam didn't, Adam knew, he wasn't deceived but he disobeyed because (according to him) Eve gave it to him and he did eat.

This is why women aren't supposed to be the leaders. We get deceived a lot and it's true. We trust in emotion more than men do. Strong men in Christ know to always check things out in the Bible first. 



> > Jen: This life is a vapor, it's a one inch dash on a tombstone between born and died. But it's our chance to get to know our Creator. That's all it is. And I believe all aborted children will have another chance. I believe they're in a far better place right now than where we are today...or where Obama is leading us (shudder)
> 
> 
> 
> I am so sorry that you have been deceived to think this. I beg of you to please study ALL parts of your bible, not JUST the ones that the baptist preacher or the anti abortion propaganda machine tells you about.



JD, that WAS from the Bible. 

_"James 4:14
whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away."_​
In fact, that was Solomon's whole point in Ecclesiastes. You can have everything you could possibly want in the world and still be bored, it's all vanity. But to know God...that's everything. 



> > God does NOT want any of us living in guilt. It's why He sent the Savior.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean that we are entitled to sin, either. Boy oh boy..



I'm sorry, is that what you got out of what I was saying? 

You're right, it doesn't entitle us to sin. But that's why Christ came, to break us free from the sins of the past and to do our best to follow Him out of love and gratitude for what He did for us. 

_23 Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Fathers who sent Me. (John 14)_​


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 3, 2010)

Let me just say that JD trying to lecture on morality - particularly Biblical morality - is just about as obscene (not to mention laughable) as JD trying to lecture on biology.  I am better equipped to address the subject of particle physics than she is to address any of those topics.


----------



## JenT (Jan 3, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Or there's always adoption if worse comes to worse.
> 
> Or the dreaded option D
> 
> Have enough kids to get your own reality TV show.



nah, there's one before that, get your tubes tied right after the last one's birth.

Then you can get divorced and have all kinds of men offering to pay $10,000 to get them untied 

Look, there's no easy answers to birth control, but abortion is NOT IT EVER.

It's murder. If it wasn't alive you wouldn't have to kill it. So it's ALIVE, right?

And it's HUMAN, right?

It's a LIVING HUMAN even at cell one ala sperm. It's conceived. Everything is all designed, mapped out, ready to go and a little kick of electricity sounds like a soul to me.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > NOT a literal verse.You were not a mistake, for all your days are written in My book
> ...




Never even heard of it until today, but it appears to be a poem, a lovely one, but one based on a variation of scriptural order, which puts the context of the meaning of verses in a different light than they were intended. 
Also, the only quotes in that poem that apply to the unborn, were verses being told to people of significant stature to God. 



> > Now THIS is better.. because even though a woman can say this also, this is alluding to God doing something beyond birthing the child- He give us life, by blowing air into us, for us to have the "breath of life", and causing us to become alive.
> 
> 
> NO WHERE does God say the life of the infant begins with his first breath. God breathed life into Adam because Adam was not born from a womb. Those are not dead babies in our wombs waiting for their first breath to come alive.



Baloney. 
Life is actually depicted in different contexts within the bible, actually. There is the "now" life- the life of the flesh, and the "later" life, which is the life some have after we are all resurrected, together, as a whole. 

In fact, the breath of life, in the context of flesh is literal:
*Genesis 2:7*
the LORD God formed the man   from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and *the man became* a living being.
*Genesis 7:22*
Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died.
*Job 12:10*
In his hand is the life of every creature  and the *breath* of all mankind.
*Job 19:17*
My breath is offensive to my wife;  I am loathsome to my own brothers.
*Job 32:8*
But it is the spirit   in a man,  the breath of the Almighty, that gives him understanding.
*Psalm 104:29*
When you hide your face,  they are terrified;  when you take away their breath,  they die and return to the dust.
*Psalm 150:6*
Let everything that *has breath* praise the LORD.  Praise the LORD.
*Isaiah 42:5*
This is what God the LORD says he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who *gives breath* to its people, * and life* to those who walk on it:
*Isaiah 57:16*
I will not accuse forever,  nor will I always be angry,  for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me  the breath of man that I have created.
*Jeremiah 10:14*
Everyone is senseless and without knowledge;  every goldsmith is shamed by his idols.  His images are a fraud;  they have no *breath* in them.
*Jeremiah 38:16*
But King Zedekiah swore this oath secretly to Jeremiah: "As surely as the LORD lives, who has given us breath, I will neither kill you nor hand you over to those who are seeking your life."
*Lamentations 4:20*
The LORD's anointed, our very* life breath*,  was caught in their traps.  We thought that under his shadow  we would live among the nations.
*Ezekiel 37:6*
I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; *I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.' "*

Need I go on?? I can, if you wish me to. 



> Where does it say God caused a miscarriage? I don't remember ever reading that. God opens and shuts wombs, as in Sarah and conception, but I believe miscarriages are a result of the fall.



All over the place!! 

Also- Several verses declaring that a stillbirth is better, for reasons not highlighted in red:
*Ecclesiastes 6:3*
A man may have a hundred children and live many years; yet no matter how long he lives, if he cannot enjoy his prosperity and does not receive proper burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he.

From The Message- which explains it in clearer terms:
*Ecclesiastes 6:3*
Say a couple have scores of children and live a long, long life but never enjoy themselveseven though they end up with a big funeral! I'd say that *a stillborn baby* gets the better deal. It gets its start in a mist and ends up in the darkunnamed. It sees nothing and knows nothing, but is better off by far than anyone living.
*Job 10:18*
"So why did you have me born? I wish no one had ever laid eyes on me! I wish I'd *never lived*a *stillborn*, buried *without ever having breathed*. Isn't it time to call it quits on my life? Can't you let up, and let me smile just once Before I die and am buried, before I'm nailed into my coffin, sealed in the ground, And banished for good to the land of the dead, blind in the final dark?"
*Jeremiah 20:14*
Curse the day I was born! The day my mother bore me a curse on it, I say! And curse the man who delivered the news to my father: "You've got a new babya boy baby!" (How happy it made him.) Let that birth notice be blacked out, deleted from the records, And the man who brought it haunted to his death with the bad news he brought. He should have killed me *before I was born*, with that womb as my tomb, My mother pregnant for the rest of her life with a baby dead in her womb. Why, oh why, did I ever *leave* that womb? *Life's been nothing but trouble* and tears, and what's coming is more of the same.
*Luke 1:15*
"He'll drink neither wine nor beer. He'll be filled with the Holy Spirit *from the moment he leaves* his mother's* womb**.* He will turn many sons and daughters of Israel back to their God. He will herald God's arrival in the style and strength of Elijah, soften the hearts of parents to children, and kindle devout understanding among hardened skepticshe'll get the people ready for God."
John 3:3Jesus said, "You're absolutely right. Take it from me: Unless a person is born from above, it's not possible to see what I'm pointing toto God's kingdom."  4"How can anyone," said Nicodemus, "be born who has already been born and grown up? You can't re-enter your mother's womb and be born again. What are you saying with this 'born-from-above' talk?" 
 5-6Jesus said, "You're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this *original creation*the '*wind-hovering-over-the-water'* creation, the *invisible moving the visible*, a baptism into a new lifeit's not possible to enter God's kingdom. When you look at a baby, it's just that: a body you can look at and touch. But *the person* who takes shape within is *formed by something you can't see and touchthe Spiritand becomes a living spirit. *
*Psalm 22:9*
And to think you were midwife at my birth, setting me at my mother's breasts! When I* left* the womb you cradled me; *since the moment of birth you've been my God.* Then you moved far away and trouble moved in next door. I need a neighbor.
*Psalm 139:13*
Oh yes, you shaped me first inside, then out; you formed me in my mother's womb. I thank you, High Godyou're breathtaking! Body and soul, I am marvelously made! I worship in adorationwhat a creation! You know me inside and out, you know every bone in my body; You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit, how I was sculpted from nothing into something. Like an open book, you watched me *grow* from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were *spread out* before you, The days of my *life* all *prepared before I'd even lived one day.*

And the piece de resistance:
Hosea 9 

14 O Lord, what should I request for your people?
      I will ask for wombs that dont give birth
      and breasts that give no milk. 15 The Lord says, All their wickedness began at Gilgal;
      there I began to hate them.
   I will drive them from my land
      because of their evil actions.
   I will love them no more
      because all their leaders are rebels.
 16 The people of Israel are struck down.
      Their roots are dried up,
      and they will bear no more fruit.
   And if they give birth,
      I will slaughter their beloved children.

NIV:
Hosea 9
14 Give them, O LORD
       what will you give them? 
       Give them wombs that miscarry 
       and breasts that are dry.  15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, 
       I hated them there. 
       Because of their sinful deeds, 
       I will drive them out of my house. 
       I will no longer love them; 
       all their leaders are rebellious. 
 16 Ephraim is blighted, 
       their root is withered, 
       they yield no fruit. 
       Even if they bear children, 
       I will slay their cherished offspring." 





> You are quoting Job cursing the day he was born. If you back up to the beginning you will see he begins by cursing the day he was conceived. You support what I'm saying with this:
> _1 After this Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth. And Job spoke, and said:
> May the day perish on which I was born,
> And the night in which it was said,
> ...


No shit, but that doesn't mean that he is not accurate about when life begins..  I believe I have illustrated that adequately enough. 



> You're quoting Ecclesiastes, who is having a meltdown about EVERYTHING through the whole book because he has absolutely everything he could possibly want, treasures and riches and women beyond wildest dreams, and he's BORED. The whole book is about his dissatisfaction.


No, see- You are not seeing the big picture here. The Bible is the inspired word of God, and everything in it is approved by God, and everything that is NOT written in it does not belong, due to God's disapproval. 



> But I think you quoted out of context what he said about animals and men.
> _18 I said in my heart, Concerning the condition of the sons of men, *God tests them, that they may see that they themselves are like animals.* For what happens to the sons of men also happens to animals; one thing befalls them: as one dies, so dies the other. Surely, they all have one breath; *man has no advantage over animals, for all is vanity.* All go to one place: all are from the dust, and all return to dust. * Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, which goes upward, and the spirit of the animal, which goes down to the earth?*_​



How is is out of context? The point of the verse is that we are all living by the grace of God, and that life would not exist without God's breath (which is the same in all of us- it is the atmosphere, we all breathe, together, as one) The only thing else it is saying is that although we all go back to dust in our fleshy forms, humans have an added gift, the Holy Spirit within us, which goes upwards. 




> Solomon is just saying he has all this wisdom and it's still not enough. Then later he says:
> _"God's ways are as hard to discern as the pathways of the wind, *and as mysterious as a tiny baby being formed in a mother's womb."*_​


There are loads of verses that refer to the fetus as a baby, but they are not relevant to when life begins, as I have already illustrated. 



> Then his final conclusion after a whole book about not knowing enough and how everything is so boring, he writes:
> "13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
> Fear God and keep His commandments,
> For this is mans all.
> ...



That has nothing to do with being bored. That was simply an enlightened moment for him, an understanding of the meaning of life.. 


> 54 Death is swallowed up in victory.
>  O Death, where is your sting?
> O Hades, where is your victory?
> The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
> 1 Cor 15



That again says nothing about when life begins. ​


> and there are all kinds of verses about trading our bodies in to be like Him.
> _18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. (Romans)
> 
> 21 For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain. 22 But if I live on in the flesh, this will mean fruit from my labor; yet what I shall choose I cannot tell. 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better. (Phil 1)_​



Yes this is about the transitioning between the life of the flesh and the life of the spirit. Believe it or not, on judgment day, everyone can decide for themselves, whether they want to choose God or Death. This is not saying that people "trade in" their bodies. It is saying that they give their flesh to God, with trust and faith, that "Jesus takes the wheel", so to speak, and whatever happens to the body becomes irrelevant, when the time of the final death and resurrection arrives. 



> But read on! Death and sin came into the world through Adam at the fall, but Christ bought us back again for those who receive Him. That's the message of the Gospel, the Good News.



Not explicitly. Christ's life was given so that everyone else did not have to die, and remain dead for an eternity. The good news is still in the future tense, but it will be caused by the past tense of the Crucifixion. 



> nooooooo, Eve was deceived with Satan's line that she would be like God. It was a half truth, that's why we need to know what God says, so we don't fall for this stuff. Adam didn't, Adam knew, he wasn't deceived but he disobeyed because (according to him) Eve gave it to him and he did eat.



What EVER, and HOW ever you want to explain the story to yourself, those two KNEW that the punishment for sin was death, even before they CHOSE death over God. They had no reason to trust anyone but God, who made them. They CHOSE, and they KNEW what the RESULTS would be, WHEN they chose. And stop DEFENDING Satan in that. They knew what they were doing. Satan needed only to say a few words, and Adam and Eve just went along with it, in a defiant act against God's ONLY command to them. 



> This is why women aren't supposed to be the leaders. We get deceived a lot and it's true. We trust in emotion more than men do. Strong men in Christ know to always check things out in the Bible first.



Then maybe you should stop posting biblical bullshit on a public forum, missy. 





> JD, that WAS from the Bible.
> _"James 4:14
> whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away."_​In fact, that was Solomon's whole point in Ecclesiastes. You can have everything you could possibly want in the world and still be bored, it's all vanity. But to know God...that's everything.



And to have too many children, children that you do not want, is the same as vanity, as Ecclesiastes says, also. 



> > > God does NOT want any of us living in guilt. It's why He sent the Savior.
> >
> >
> > That doesn't mean that we are entitled to sin, either. Boy oh boy..
> ...



Our past includes our whole lives.. but he came not only to break us free from our sins, but also to rescue us from eternal death. 


> 23 Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Fathers who sent Me. (John 14)



Right. He does say "not mine, but the Father's who sent me", and yet I bet you call Jesus God, too, lol.. ​


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

eots said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1866821 said:
> ...



Tell me.. how does one get syphilis, herpes, or HIV from someone who has none of the above???

Again, LMFAO!!!! Nice try, though.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Frankly you should stick with me dear. There isn't any head way to be made arguing over religion. Beliefs are generally emotional in nature and hard to negate whether you're 'right' or not. Especially when you're trying to interpret a book that everyone says was essentially written by god but was really written by fallable men who cherry picked what went in to it.
> ...


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



OK then let me spell it out to you- once someone has HAD sex, it is very very difficult to abstain from having more of it, as these abstinence studies have proven. 
That is because ABSTINENCE- The TEACHING of it, does not WORK. Abstinence only lasts for SO long. 

You are trying to claim that ABSTINENCE is a surefire way to avoid getting pregnant. I beg to fucking differ. You have the studies that prove that preaching abstinence does NOT cure people from having sex, and thus, does not cure them from getting pregnant. Can I spell it out any more clearly to you?



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, people who are married are not going to forego sex just because YOU have a problem with abortion.
> ...


Yeah, maybe you should try to pass some law that says that anyone who is sexually active must keep images of aborted fetuses above the bed, as a reminder that YOU subjectively think that they are "people"..  [/quote]

I don't subjectively think they're people.  I objectively think they are because science says so.  YOU subjectively think they aren't because you desperately need to pretend you're a good person instead of a selfish sack of dung.

When in doubt, look at the motive.[/quote]

Not wanting to be pregnant anymore does not, even in the LOOSEST WAY, make fetuses people. 

Also, Telling me I am a selfish sack of dung does not further your position, sweetie pie. Just because YOUR decision was different from MINE, does not automatically give you a permanent position on some kind of ethical high horse. 

PS- Science has NEVER called fetuses people. Show me some medical journal where fetuses are actually called people, fucking liar.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I don't subjectively think they're people.  I objectively think they are because science says so.  YOU subjectively think they aren't because you desperately need to pretend you're a good person instead of a selfish sack of dung.

When in doubt, look at the motive.[/quote]

Not wanting to be pregnant anymore does not, even in the LOOSEST WAY, make fetuses people. 

Also, Telling me I am a selfish sack of dung does not further your position, sweetie pie. Just because YOUR decision was different from MINE, does not automatically give you a permanent position on some kind of ethical high horse. 

PS- Science has NEVER called fetuses people. Show me some medical journal where fetuses are actually called people, fucking liar.[/QUOTE]

You are getting less sane with every post.  See someone about that.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Below is is post 410 in it's entirety with your requested answers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Stop dodging the question. HOW far should the "fullest extent of the law" travel? 10 years? 20 years? Life? Death penalty?? What is your position on how long women who illegally abort should fucking be punished????

I dont think that saying "Oh it is okay to abort for any reason at allis  up to 3 months- and as late as is needed for the woman's life, but at any other time , it is murder, because I subjectively declare that the fetus has magically turned into a fetus-person, and in ANY other case besides the ones I deem worthy, it is MURDER, so that woman should ROT in PRISON for those ones!!!" is AT ALL logical. Can you SEE why?? It's fucking STUPID, that is WHY. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > If a woman decided to abort a pregnancy, during the time when the fetus is deemed to be potentially conscious, and was therefore illegal, what should her punishment be? Can you ANSWER that?
> ...



What fucking circumstances??? She, in your own words, and the words of your ilk,  committed "murder", not manslaughter- and what fucking circumstances anyways??? Jesus Christ! What the FUCK. Can you BE more elusive about punishment, and defining her punishment? You are CLEARLY adamant that late term abortion is MURDER, and then when asked what the punishment should be, you start saying "manslaughter", a lesser charge, and "oh it depends on the circumstances". Whose circumstances??? The fetus-person's or the woman's??? Holy mother of God, this is, by FAR, the most irrational load of horseshit I have ever laid eyes on. 





> If that were the case that would force you to admit that the possibility exists you are taking another human life. Curious that you are okay with that risk In truth though you can't keep waffling between terms. You have stated before that sentience really doesn't matter to you from a legal perspective. So YOU answer a direct question: At what point should a woman be prosecuted for killing her child?



After it BREATHES its FIRST breath, if it dies as a result of negligence by ANYONE, then it is MURDER. Fucking lather, rinse, and repeat for only the five hundredth time in this thread alone. 

Christ. 

A person can be simply TAKEN OFF of life support, and ZEALOTS LIKE YOU will sit there and admonish the family, the courts- whomever is available to make that decision- and call it fucking murder as well, so I really don't know why I am SOOOOOO surprised about this. 




> I haven't brought up my religious beliefs once in this thread that I am aware of. AGAIN it is you doing the bulk of the baseless presuming dear. My beliefs about killing an innocent human life does not come from what any religion tells me about the matter. Personally I find people who's morality is guided by religion to be rather weak minded. The rest of your bull shit argument about my position being religious wether I recognize it or not is just that, bull shit. To contend that is to contend that without religion humans can not distinguish between right and wrong.



Well, I have heard that bullshit story before, and would have to correct you on many points:
Yes you are capable of independent thinking
No religion has not gone past you, unnoticed.. 
Yes, religious people, or people whose moral compass was affected in some way, by religion, HAVE had a part of your life, and a big role in teaching you, from a young age, that murder and death are bad things. 
The media also has had a hand in your belief system, like it or not, because they have drilled into your head as well, that killers are bad, wanted by the police, and therefore killING is bad too. 

NOT ONE person on this planet can try to pretend that religion and their belonging to a group (Earth, being 85% religious) has played ZERO role in the development of their personal moral compass. That is total bullshit. 

Also, what PART of the Earth you live in can play a MAJOR role in one's personal values. In Japan, men are more likely to look down on women. The men enter a room first, all the way down to the youngest man in the family (the male baby, who enters in FRONT of the mother carrying him), through to the Oldest woman (after the youngest man) and down to the youngest female entering last. If you were raised in Japan, women would never be addressed first in a room, and would be the least likely person you chose when seeking a new employee. 
In Islamic society, one's life is put second to everything else. Life is not counted as "sacred". In fact, Islamic people would rather be KILLED than RAPED. Rape is the ultimate disgrace that can be done to the human body, in that culture. If you grew up in that culture, you would think FAR differently about RAPE and death than you do here. (We all would!)

That is called CULTURAL AGREEMENT. If you are within a group, or a culture of that group, then TO BELONG, one IS subjected to developing specific beliefs, based on whatever the GROUP believes. 

I do agree that you are a free thinker- just don't try to kid yourself that you came up with the whole "death is bad news" and "killing is wrong" mindset. 


> The same way any person is punished for murder. I suppose in the court system it could actually range from anything from manslaughter to pre-meditated murder depending on the circumstances. The punishment of which would be whatever the legal statutes are for that charge. That is all dependent of course on the a child being given legal status that would warrant those charges, but assuming it was, why would the punishment be any different for killing an unborn human being than killing a born one?



To answer your hypothetical question: The difference would be a matter of Privacy.... 
And the fact that your "circumstances" and "premeditated murder versus manslaughter" crap is only following a certain point. So, if she has twins, it is your opinion that having an abortion is her RIGHT up to a certain point, and under certain circumstances, especially if it meant to save her own life, but the week following that point of "legal obtainment", as long as she aint on some kinda death bed, anyways, she is suddenly a fucking murderer, who would get the death penalty, for aborting it by choice...  is that fucking right???

And if she belly flops off of a high dive, and claims that she did not know that the amniotic sac was not strong enough to maintain the fetus' status of growth... ?? Then what..  

Oh and the man that beats on the woman, causing her to have a miscarriage- is he a murderer too? How about the 16 year old who is an inexperienced and unlicensed driver, who T-bones her car, causing her to miscarry when she is late term??? She lives, but her fetus-person is miscarried/ stillborn. Does that 16 year old get the death sentence also???

THINK about the possible reprocussions for what you are implying.. and the lack of logic that goes with it. It absolutely does NOT make sense. 



> yeah....not me again. I'm not sure I care what the sources say. I only maintain that your extreme stance isn't logical to me. You see your argument renders what the sources say irrelevent. I don't have to prove they're right. All I have to do is make a decent argument that you are not. The only problem is I'm not sure you even know what your position is considering how much back and forth you've done on it. So I again ask at what point if any, should a woman be prosecuted for killing her children?



I have answered that question enough times already. After her born child takes a breath of air. 
And you have not brought up a single argument that has AT ALL conferred to me that fetuses can possibly be sentient, because those studies are all inconclusive. It is only, then, an OPINION, or a leap of faith, at best, that fetuses have any kind of sentience whatsoever. Sorry, bubs, but a leap of faith that contradicts ALL evidence is 100% subjective. 


> From the perspective of the child no I don't believe there is a difference. No child before the age of about 3 (before including just post conception) will survive long without SOMEONE caring for it. YOU made the assertion that a justification for abortion is that the fetus is this 'thing' that is wholly dependent on you for survival and thus has no rights of it's own. All I am trying to get across is that relatively speaking their is little difference in the level of dependence a child has on SOMEONE to insure its survival pre-birth or post-birth



You are, at some point, going to HAVE to admit, that if the woman carrying a fetus dies, or loses oxygen, or has an accident, then that fetus is prone and subjected to her injuries, and therefore may not be taken care of by anyone or "rescued" from the plight that the woman is experiencing. In any BORN child, this is a very different story, and YOU have to admit that to YOURSELF. This is THE hardest thing for pro lifers who want fetuses to have rights and entitlements to admit, that the "right to life" in no way promises some "entitlement" to live. The comparison of responsibility that ANYONE (out of 6.5 billion) can take for a born child is just not applicable to a SINGLE someone having to maintain optimal health, and remain alive as some responsibility to a fetus, for the fetus to survive, even considering any problems the fetus is causing her, and try to say that the fetus is the equivalent to a born child.  You KNOW this, you just cant admit it. 



> That long winded BS doesn't mean adoption is off the table. This is real simple JD. Again presuming you believe a child is a human being at some point pre-birth, all that is being argued is that you don't have the right to murder that child without being prosecuted.



Who fucking said that adoption was off the table??? I simply do not women to be made into societal birthing slaves, the way YOU want. 


> Why is it preposterous or outrageous for a woman to find out if an outcome she KNOWS is possible, a life changing outcome at that, has actually happened? What fucking sense does it make to go through everything you went through, when it could have been prevented so much sooner by simply taking a pregnancy test? Forget our disagreement for a moment on what you and I consider irresponsible behavior, doesn't it just plain make the most sense to find out as soon as possible?



Christ! This again!! Do you know that there are actually couples out there who do not EXPECT to get pregnant, because they are on birth control, do not EXPECT to get a period, because of the type of birth control they are on, and YET, they (apparently SELFISHLY) have SEX every day, or every other day, or many times a day, because they have this BELIEF that their birth control is actually fucking WORKING???? Golly Gee! What a concept!!! 
Women, and their families, should not have to spend five dollars a week on a fucking pregnancy test, year round, just because YOU want women in PRISON or in some GODDAMNED GAS CHAMBER for having a fucking ABORTION!!!! Get the FUCK over it already. 


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so how should women who abort in the 4th month be punished then?? Go ahead, and answer the question.
> ...



Allelujah!!!! Sooooooooooo... Now an embryo is not a "human life", and neither is an early term FETUS, and all of this is based on SCIENCE!! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Looks like you just made a breakthrough in the direction of reality. Congrats!!! =)






> As I said above. I don't find it relevant to your position because in your position the justification for abortion doesn't stop at that point in time. I have gathered it stops after the baby is born and it may not even matter whether it is human life before that to you as a legal issue.




Oh my god. You brought yourself SOOO CLOSE.. and yet, with this statement, you fell off the wagon of truth YET again. 

When does a fetus become a human life..  and what happens so magically in the week before you declare it to be sentient, even though neither the study of science nor any medical journal known to mankind agrees with this assertion, to cause it to suddenly become a human life???  



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Oh really- please DO TELL us what kinds of knowledge and such a fetusperson can share with the rest of us? YOU ARE DODGING THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO LOGICAL ANSWER.
> ...



How so???

Point to ONE salesperson/ chairperson/ spokesperson who is not a fucking PERSON. 

And I did NOT say that All persons are SUCH THINGS, I was responding to your, or at least one of your ilk's dictionary definition of "person", with references to "Salesperson", "chairperson" and "spokesperson". 

And stop dodging that question too- Name ONE fetus who is a spokesperson/ chairperson or salesperson, as per your dictionary definition. 

No fucking way are you going to turn this shit around on ME. 

Fuck ME. Jesus Fucking Christ.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




And in that medical dictionary, they are saying that conception is the ONSET of another condition called a pregnancy, and in the definition (to avoid confusion between nitwits like you) have pregnancy LINKED and simply continue to define PREGNANCY, AS a SEPARATE TERM, EVEN in THAT DICTIONARY. 

If you had copied and pasted it, this is what it would look like:
*Definition of Conception*




Conception Slideshow​ 



*Conception:* *1.* The union of the sperm and the ovum. Synonymous with fertilization.
*2.* The onset of pregnancy, marked by implantation of the blastocyst into the endometrium.
*3.* A basic understanding of a situation or a principle.
From the Latin conceptio, conceptionis meaning conception, becoming pregnant; drawing up of legal formulae; and from the Latin conceptus meaning conceiving, pregnancy; collecting, or a collection.


Furthermore, if conception meant the SAME thing as pregnancy, then how do you explain In vitro fertilization of embryos? Oh I'm sorry- Are ALL of those Embryos a part of the pregnancy, and the "losers" are just waste byproducts???? 
Exactly.. Because she WILL NOT get pregnant with all 5 blastocysts, they are just the precursor to pregnancy, and in this case, the vast majority of them will not succeed in implanting into her uterus. 


The first week of gestation happens PRIOR to the implantation process, and a third of these non-implanting zygotes are unknown to the woman and gent who formed them, even when they have a miscarriage. Some people don't know that they have had a miscarriage, but most women have had them, whether they realize it or not. In fact somewhere in the range of between 2/3 to 3/4 of all miscarriages happen EARLY in the first trimester of pregnancy.. 



> ^ _*a*_ _*b*_ Rosenthal, M. Sara (1999). "The Second Trimester". _The Gynecological Sourcebook_. WebMD. Baby's Growth and Development in the Second Trimester of Pregnancy. Retrieved 18 December 2006.
> 
> Most clinically apparent miscarriages (two thirds to three-quarters in various studies) occur during the first trimester.
> 
> *^* Francis O (1959). "An analysis of 1150 cases of abortions from the Government R.S.R.M. Lying-in Hospital, Madras". _J Obstet Gynaecol India_ *10* (1): 6270. PMID 12336441.




Sooo. Let's review:

Gestation =/= pregnancy. 
Pregnancy =/= Entitlement to remain pregnant, much less for the fetus/ embryo to remain in the uterus

SCIENCE and NATURE have proven this over and over and over again. How many times do you need these facts to be repeated to you?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 4, 2010)

Surprise, surprise... someone using the bible as justification for killing someone...


Six thousand years of this shit...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You are trying to claim that ABSTINENCE is a surefire way to avoid  getting pregnant. I beg to fucking differ. You have the studies that  prove that preaching abstinence does NOT cure people from having sex,  and thus, does not cure them from getting pregnant. Can I spell it out  any more clearly to you?




abstinence =/= sex

abstinence =/= 'abstinence only education'

not pregnant =/= not getting nailed by the football team

JD =/= Intelligent person


I'm trying to make this as simple as possible for you,JD.

Let's back up. Do you understand what cells, tissues, and organisms are and why Fido can't get you pregnant?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Sooo. Let's review:
> 
> Gestation =/= pregnancy.



Gestation occurs during pregnancy, as well.

S: (n) *gestation*, gestation  period (the period during which an embryo develops (about 266 days  in humans)) 

S: (n) *pregnancy*, gestation,  maternity  (the state of being pregnant; the period from conception to birth when a  woman carries a developing fetus in her uterus)


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Stop dodging the question. HOW far should the "fullest extent of the law" travel? 10 years? 20 years? Life? Death penalty?? What is your position on how long women who illegally abort should fucking be punished????



Why is the exact punishment so important to you? It isn't important to me. My contention is and always has been that abortion after a certain point for certain reasons should be considered a legal offense. Once it becomes a legal matter it is a matter for the courts. Punishment of which would be up to a judge. Lawyers can do their legal finagling to decide the charge and the judge or jury or will decide the sentence based on the sentencing guidelines for that charge.



JD_2B said:


> I dont think that saying "Oh it is okay to abort for any reason at allis  up to 3 months- and as late as is needed for the woman's life, but at any other time , it is murder, because I subjectively declare that the fetus has magically turned into a fetus-person, and in ANY other case besides the ones I deem worthy, it is MURDER, so that woman should ROT in PRISON for those ones!!!" is AT ALL logical. Can you SEE why?? It's fucking STUPID, that is WHY.



The only one here who believes in magical occurances, whether you recognize it or not, is you. Read on...... 



JD_2B said:


> What fucking circumstances??? She, in your own words, and the words of your ilk,  committed "murder", not manslaughter- and what fucking circumstances anyways??? Jesus Christ! What the FUCK. Can you BE more elusive about punishment, and defining her punishment? You are CLEARLY adamant that late term abortion is MURDER, and then when asked what the punishment should be, you start saying "manslaughter", a lesser charge, and "oh it depends on the circumstances". Whose circumstances??? The fetus-person's or the woman's??? Holy mother of God, this is, by FAR, the most irrational load of horseshit I have ever laid eyes on.



What is irrational about it? If I got my way and abortion under the circumstances I deemed were prosecutable I can say what I think the charge should be or the punishment should be. But what I want will be irrelevant. It first hinges on an unborn child being given legal status as a human being. Let's look at that for a second. IF that happened why would someone not be permitted to be charged just as someone who takes an adult life? I can't think of a reason. That being the case the court procedings would forsesabley play out just as if someone had taken an adult life. Lawyers would hagle over the charges and if convicted a judge or jury would set a sentence.    



JD_2B said:


> After it BREATHES its FIRST breath, if it dies as a result of negligence by ANYONE, then it is MURDER. Fucking lather, rinse, and repeat for only the five hundredth time in this thread alone.
> 
> Christ.
> 
> A person can be simply TAKEN OFF of life support, and ZEALOTS LIKE YOU will sit there and admonish the family, the courts- whomever is available to make that decision- and call it fucking murder as well, so I really don't know why I am SOOOOOO surprised about this.



Presuming AGAIN. There's a slight (by slight I mean major if you didn't catch the sarcasm) difference between an unborn child and a person on life support. Getting to the breathing thing shortly.......



JD_2B said:


> Well, I have heard that bullshit story before, and would have to correct you on many points:
> Yes you are capable of independent thinking
> No religion has not gone past you, unnoticed..
> Yes, religious people, or people whose moral compass was affected in some way, by religion, HAVE had a part of your life, and a big role in teaching you, from a young age, that murder and death are bad things.
> ...



I grew up in a 'traditional' catholic family. I also somehow managed to turn out hyper objective somehow. Objective enough anyway to recognize that organized religion doesn't make much sense. And certainly not naive enough to believe that that there wasn't some political hagling over what got in the bible or what the church says god said. Of course I didn't come up with the whole killing is bad thing. There just plain aren't that many original ideas or thoughts left in the world to claim as one's own. But I can still separate what I have been TOLD is right from what IS right. maybe I just agreed with you there. Regardless I don't see the point in bringing up the religous aspect.



JD_2B said:


> And if she belly flops off of a high dive, and claims that she did not know that the amniotic sac was not strong enough to maintain the fetus' status of growth... ?? Then what..



If this were to become a legal issue I believe there is fairly ample precedent that ignorance rarely works as a defense. Saying I didn't know belly flopping of the high dive would be bad for my pregnancy is really the same as saying I didn't know the gun was loaded. True story: A high school classmate of mine posed for some 'dramatic' pictures with his handgun in which he pointed it straight at the photographers lense. Gun goes off, photographer dies. Horrific accident of course, but by YOUR argument that person should not be held criminally accountable for anything (he was convicted of manslaughter if memory serves). 



JD_2B said:


> Oh and the man that beats on the woman, causing her to have a miscarriage- is he a murderer too? How about the 16 year old who is an inexperienced and unlicensed driver, who T-bones her car, causing her to miscarry when she is late term??? She lives, but her fetus-person is miscarried/ stillborn. Does that 16 year old get the death sentence also???



Once you wrap your head around the idea of an unborn child being granted legal status as a human being, just assume it for arguments sake, these question actually become a lot easier to answer, not harder. If you and your friend were in a car, you're driving, and you get in an accident, she's killed, you live. What would be the legal ramifications to you?



JD_2B said:


> THINK about the possible reprocussions for what you are implying.. and the lack of logic that goes with it. It absolutely does NOT make sense.



You are due for an overwhelming dose of your own advice. I have stated this before. YOU need to consider the beliefs that your position requires. If you objectively looked at those I think you would see the ridiculousness of your postion. Case in point below.



JD_2B said:


> I have answered that question enough times already. After her born child takes a breath of air.
> And you have not brought up a single argument that has AT ALL conferred to me that fetuses can possibly be sentient, because those studies are all inconclusive. It is only, then, an OPINION, or a leap of faith, at best, that fetuses have any kind of sentience whatsoever. Sorry, bubs, but a leap of faith that contradicts ALL evidence is 100% subjective.



Thank you for illustrating my point here so very well. This is where you fail in a truly epic sense and show you aren't the great logician you think you are. First off I'm not the one that has to be right. You are. My position has room for error. Yours doesn't. Again I don't really have to prove myself right all I have to prove is you're wrong. Objectively speaking if it came out the absolute truth was on your side. That a baby simply can't be considered a human being before it takes it's first breathe and thus a woman can't be charged with anything, I'd get over it and accept it. But if absolute truth was on my side I think you would not accept it. I think you would continue to rationalize reasons why killing a human being before birth is okay.

Here's where the logic comes in and only having to prove you wrong. A human being is a human being only after it takes it's first breathe you say. That requires a belief that somehow breathing triggers consciousness or sentients. You complain about my lack of evidence, but the evidence you would have to show is that somehow that split second act triggers the level of consciousness or sentients that only then makes you classify killing the child as murder. THAT is the part of your reasoning that is wholly illogical. I think you would be hard pressed to show that that first breathe not only starts the lungs, but also CAUSES some neurological function in that split second that causes the child to achieve a level of conciousness that was somehow observably not there a split second before. THAT is what you would have to show for your position to be correct. I'll certainly listen to the evidence if you can provide it. But objectively speaking I think you would have to objectively admit that those events occuring within that split second are highly unlikely. 

Or choose another argument, but the act of breathing all by itself is a really bad one. Breathing is an involuntary action. It isn't something the baby learns, it just does it. You could argue that it being a human being before birth really isn't important to you from a legal perspective, but then you have to explain away a list of other things.



JD_2B said:


> You are, at some point, going to HAVE to admit, that if the woman carrying a fetus dies, or loses oxygen, or has an accident, then that fetus is prone and subjected to her injuries, and therefore may not be taken care of by anyone or "rescued" from the plight that the woman is experiencing. In any BORN child, this is a very different story, and YOU have to admit that to YOURSELF. This is THE hardest thing for pro lifers who want fetuses to have rights and entitlements to admit, that the "right to life" in no way promises some "entitlement" to live. The comparison of responsibility that ANYONE (out of 6.5 billion) can take for a born child is just not applicable to a SINGLE someone having to maintain optimal health, and remain alive as some responsibility to a fetus, for the fetus to survive, even considering any problems the fetus is causing her, and try to say that the fetus is the equivalent to a born child.  You KNOW this, you just cant admit it.



Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who takes responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period.  It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. Maybe you need to consider the prespective of whether the child would choose you as a mother.





JD_2B said:


> Allelujah!!!! Sooooooooooo... Now an embryo is not a "human life", and neither is an early term FETUS, and all of this is based on SCIENCE!! Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!
> 
> Looks like you just made a breakthrough in the direction of reality. Congrats!!! =)



I didn't say anything different than I've said or should be intuitevly obvious to the most casual observer before. I never said there is human life in an early term fetus or that there shouldn't be abortions under any circumstances.





JD_2B said:


> How so???
> 
> Point to ONE salesperson/ chairperson/ spokesperson who is not a fucking PERSON.



Not what i said. The above is a true statement. 



JD_2B said:


> And stop dodging that question too- Name ONE fetus who is a spokesperson/ chairperson or salesperson, as per your dictionary definition.



This is an untrue statement. And not something i said, but you did. You said, and I could be paraphrasing, that you have never met a fetus person. Great. That would only be true if all person's were in the group ______person. Thus your statement is irrelevant. Just because somethin is not a _____person, does not mean it is not a person.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2010)

*Dedicated to JD 28*


i used to hang around in bars
i'd let myself get picked up by jocks with sports cars
i'd let them take me back to their place
where i'd suck and fuck and fuck and suck and sit on their face
then i got knocked up in the 80's
so i went to a clinic for ladies
the doctor stuck a suction hose up my ****
the he scraped and sucked and sucked and scraped till he  killed that little runt
now its the late 90s
and what is really such a laugh 
 is AIDS killed all the junkies and the queers
but i'm still here cause i washed my needles out with bleach
and never went to one of those roman fucking bathes
ooowww wee oooweee ...dream date of the 90's

Dream Date Of The 90's Lyrics
Songwriters: N/A


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Stop dodging the question. HOW far should the "fullest extent of the law" travel? 10 years? 20 years? Life? Death penalty?? What is your position on how long women who illegally abort should fucking be punished????
> ...



So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also??? 
Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I dont think that saying "Oh it is okay to abort for any reason at allis  up to 3 months- and as late as is needed for the woman's life, but at any other time , it is murder, because I subjectively declare that the fetus has magically turned into a fetus-person, and in ANY other case besides the ones I deem worthy, it is MURDER, so that woman should ROT in PRISON for those ones!!!" is AT ALL logical. Can you SEE why?? It's fucking STUPID, that is WHY.
> ...


OKAY!! What-EV!




> What is irrational about it? If I got my way and abortion under the circumstances I deemed were prosecutable I can say what I think the charge should be or the punishment should be. But what I want will be irrelevant. It first hinges on an unborn child being given legal status as a human being. Let's look at that for a second. IF that happened why would someone not be permitted to be charged just as someone who takes an adult life? I can't think of a reason. That being the case the court procedings would forsesabley play out just as if someone had taken an adult life. Lawyers would hagle over the charges and if convicted a judge or jury would set a sentence.


Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own. 




> Presuming AGAIN. There's a slight (by slight I mean major if you didn't catch the sarcasm) difference between an unborn child and a person on life support. Getting to the breathing thing shortly.......


Logistically speaking, yeah. A building can lose power, which would fuel the person's life support.. A woman can lose life, which also fuels the life support. The ONLY difference is that the person who was on life support can have one or two people breathing FOR them, and pumping their heart FOR them, and still survive. You have to admit, this is not the case with a fetus. 





> I grew up in a 'traditional' catholic family. I also somehow managed to turn out hyper objective somehow. Objective enough anyway to recognize that organized religion doesn't make much sense. And certainly not naive enough to believe that that there wasn't some political hagling over what got in the bible or what the church says god said. Of course I didn't come up with the whole killing is bad thing. There just plain aren't that many original ideas or thoughts left in the world to claim as one's own. But I can still separate what I have been TOLD is right from what IS right. maybe I just agreed with you there. Regardless I don't see the point in bringing up the religous aspect.


The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this..  but to say that religion does not have some kind of effect on EVERYONE, even the atheists, is just lying to ones self. 
Anyways, I didn't start quoting bible scriptures. I said that I believe that there IS indeed an invisible divine force at work, at birth, that gives us all life. 

I have to finish this response later.. Sorry. =)


*******************************************************


EDITED TO RESPOND FULLY..




> If this were to become a legal issue I believe there is fairly ample precedent that ignorance rarely works as a defense. Saying I didn't belly flopping of the high dive would bad for my pregnancy is really same as saying I don't know the gun was loaded. True story: A high school classmate of mine posed for some pictures 'dramatic' pictures with his handgun in which he pointed it straight at the photographers lense. Gun goes off, photographer dies. Horrific accident of course, but by YOUR argument that person should not be held criminally accountable for anything (he was convicted of manslaughter if memory serves).



Ummmm Just because someone points a gun at another person, and pulls the trigger, does not mean that they did it on purpose. There are often hunting accidents, and other types of gun related accidents, that do not have the intent required to get a murder/ manslaughter conviction, or any kind of conviction for that matter. 
Same goes with pregnant belly flopping, and speeding in one's car, even. The implication of any risk involved is neither consent to the risk, nor is it an indicator of some kind of malicious intent. YOUR comparison is FAR different from anything sport related. YOUR comparison is between a SPORT and an intentional, malicious act. Fucking get a grip. 





> Once you wrap your head around the idea of an unborn child being granted legal status as a human being, just assume it for arguments sake, these question actually become a lot easier answer, not harder. If you and your friend were in a car, you're driving, and you get in an accident, she's killed, you live. What would be the legal ramifications to you?



Nothing as long as there was no INTENT, you fucking dipshit. 

Now it is YOUR turn.. Imagine fetuses had rights. If a pregnant woman was speeding, knowing that speeding also has a risk of injury to it, and had an accident, (even if it was caused by faulty brakes, or a deer in the road, or whatever- but the bottom line being that would have been avoided had the woman not been speeding) then if her 8 month gestated fetus dies, YOUR implications of fetuses having RIGHTS and ENTITLEMENTS, and being otherwise considered "US Citizens", by all definition that you are implying.. Then would that not be negligent homicide??

And then WHAT about the 11 week pregnant woman who walks into an abortion clinic, and pays someone to erase her condition of being pregnant?? You can NOT sit there and LOGICALLY SAY that the former is MURDER or MANSLAUGHTER, or any other form of homicide, when you ALSO sit there and (to be Politically correct, no doubt) say that the latter is not the same fucking thing, based on a few lousy months/weeks/days/hours of gestation, computing to a change in "trimester". 

How the fuck do you think that infants become people in the first place?? Or, to put it in YOUR terms, how do you think that 8 month fetuses gain "personhood"??? How on EARTH can you place MORE value on a fetus, based SOLELY on gestation and "quickening", a ridiculous, and GROSSLY ANTIQUATED NOTION, than on a fetus that has not yet been "felt"!!!!!???!!!???!! 

And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger??? 

It is absolutely ridiculous!!!


> You are due for an overwhelming dose of your own advice. I have stated this before. YOU need to consider the beliefs that your position requires. if you objectively looked at those I think you would see the ridiculousness of your postion. Case in point below.



Who fucking cares?? It is THE WOMAN'S UTERUS, and NOT YOURS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR. Stop trying to be everyone's FATHER FIGURE. I don't give a shit whether the fucking fetus was 11 years old and had the brain capacity of a genius, and could potentially solve all of the worlds problems, if it is inside of MY BODY.. It's SIZE and MENTAL CAPACITY mean NOTHING to MY livelihood, if I DO NOT WANT IT IN ME. 

Men do not get to poke their little wieners inside of a woman without FULL consent, including if a woman decide AFTER the sex STARTED that they do not want that part of a man's body within her own. If she THEN says NO, then he NEEDS TO PULL THE FUCK OUT, OR, in my state, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THE MOTHERFUCKER, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT THE ONES BEING RAPED, and are just WATCHING. This is BASIC fucking AUTONOMY, and HUMANITARIANISM. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has any fucking RIGHT to tell someone that they have no right to remove something from their body, including with the use of force, for reasons of UNWANTEDNESS. Nobody. 





> Thank you for illustrating my point here so very well. This is where you fail in a truly epic sense and show you aren't the great logician you think you are. First off I'm not the one that has to be right. You are. My position has room for error.



No- Your position totally LACKS evidence, and is based on "tradition"- the hundreds of years of people believing that a fetus's reflexive actions in the uterus, is somehow related to thinking. YOU have ZERO margin for error here, ALSO, because YOU have to PROVE that a zygote/ embryo/ fetus can survive even if the mother does not, despite the fact that infants can be cared for by ANYBODY. No margin for error there. Prove it. Should be easy, since you are sooooo dead set on it. 




> > Yours doesn't. Again I don't really have to prove myself right all I have to prove is you're wrong. Objectively speaking if it came out the absolute truth was on your side. That a baby simple can't be considered a human being before it takes it's first breathe. I'd get over it and accept it. But if absolute truth was on my side I think you would not accept it. I think you would contine rationalize reasons why killing a human being even before birth is okay.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where the logic comes in and only having to prove you wrong. A human being is a human being only after it takes it's first breathe you say. That requires a belief that somehow breathing triggers consciousness or sentients. You complain about my lack of evidence, but the evidence you would have to show is that somehow that split second act triggers the level of consciousness or sentients that only than makes you classify killing the child as murder. THAT is the part of your reasoning that is wholly illogical. I think you would be hard pressed to show that that first breathe not only starts the lungs, but also CAUSES some neurological function in that split second that causes the child to achieve a level of conciousness that was somehow observably not there a split second before. THAT is what you would have to show for your position to be correct. I'll certainly listen to the evidence if you can provide it. But objectively speaking I think you would have to objectively admit that those events occuring within that split second are highly unlikely.



The LAW is on our side already... So it is REALLY YOUR case that would need a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that some woman, somewhere, killed a "sentient" fetus, and not just some reflexive growing human-looking blob of tissue and bone that happens to have human DNA. YOU have to prove sentience. YOU brought it up, YOU prove it. WE do not want women to be criminalized, and have already seen all of your ilk's failed attempts at proving sentience through all of the inconclusive studies and emotional rhetoric... which is proof enough for us. 



> Or choose another argument, but the act of breathing all by itself is a really bad one. Breathing is an involuntary actions. It isn't something the baby learns, it just does it. You could argue that it being human being before birth really isn't important to you from a legal perspective, but then you have to explain away a list of other things.



Thumb sucking is an involuntary action, as is all of the kicking and jabbing that occurs. Nobody said that the baby "leans" to breathe, but you do make a good point, that I can use: Fetuses do the action of "breathing", taking in and expiring amniotic fluid. THIS is definitely involuntary, and something that cannot be replicated, once the infant takes a breath of air. This is not ACTUAL breathing.. However, the FIRST breath of air, does indeed take some coaxing sometimes, and is generally an effect of a LABORED AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSE TO OXYGENATED AIR, and a COLDER ENVIRONMENT. One can easily argue that respiration, in and of itself, is involuntary, but NOT when it comes to that extra special, highly DIFFICULT first breath. 

This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:

http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/170/3/313

Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof. 

http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/6984504

Of course, you would probably refer to THIS study, that wishes to help increase the tissue in livers and lungs of fetuses, using some ridiculous scientific process of chemical enhancements, etc.. and claim that since it CAN be done, that it SHOULD be done.. which is lame as fucking hell, because even if those lungs grew faster, even this study has not tested the effects of a larger lung mass on post birth lung function and compared it to those involuntary breathing movements of adults..

http://ajplung.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/285/3/L569

How is that? Got enough PROOF now???? Even pro life scientists are trying desperately to look for ways to make abortion illegal, through ridiculous and inconsequential studies on tissue growth. 





> Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who take responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period.  It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. Maybe you need to consider if the child would choose you as a mother.



Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND *AND* AND AND *AND* AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE. 
Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!







> I didn't say anything different than I've said or should be intuitevly obvious to the most casual observer before. I never said there is human life at an early term fetus or that there shouldn't be abortions under any circumstances.



Whatever. Yeah you did.. 





> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > How so???
> ...



I made a TYPO in regards to PRO's DEFINITION OF PERSON, INCLUDING THE WORDS CHAIRPERSON, ETC. Fuck the fuck off, ASSHOLE.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this







JD_2B said:


> FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking  it's first breath,  because the bible defines it that way.


----------



## Douger (Jan 5, 2010)

Simple. Do as ye will and harm none.
Food for thought.

For the wingnuts. There "supposedly" is no life until breath.............
Read your owners manual.


----------



## JenT (Jan 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...




Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.

I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.

Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.​


----------



## JenT (Jan 5, 2010)

btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge. 

The actual text reads:

"And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the LORD."

Writing it as though it means breath comes before life is just wrong and a misrepresentation.


----------



## eots (Jan 5, 2010)

can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1871688 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > The religious aspect did not "determine" my opinions on this
> ...



Ugh.. I do make a lot of errors when I am typing. I meant "And", rather than "because". 

Anyways, the moment YOU decide to lend anything to this discussion besides a lot of sarcasm and trolling, please let me know. =)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

eots said:


> can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct



The medical journals prove that I am correct. ;-)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.
> 
> The actual text reads:
> 
> ...



The actual text?? Are you seriously implying that there is only one translation of the bible??

Actually, my linked verses were compiled from a variety of sources, but I believe the one I listed that one from was NIV. 

And PS- 

Sinews = TENDONS
"bring up flesh upon you"= cover you in skin
Put breath into you = breathe into you
And you shall live= After all that other stuff listed BEFORE. 


Split hairs all you want, baby girl- it is not the bible's translation that amounts to a fetus being either a person or alive. ;-)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.



That is not true- All of those verses are interrelated. 



> I asked you, where does it say God caused a miscarriage and you put mountains of text up where people in the Bible used the word but not one of them talks about God causing a miscarriage.



Oops I guess YOU missed Hosea. I posted that one also. It is also present throughout Exodus, and don't try to say that this is the exception to the rule.. LOOK at this example of MANDATORY abortion, for women who cheat on their husbands...

Numbers 5:12-31  (see your Bible for the entire thing)
" . . . If any man's wife go aside, and commit a trespass against him, And a man lie with her carnally, . . . and she be defiled, . . . . Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest, . . . . And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water: . . . and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse . . . and say unto the woman, . . . . if thou hast gone aside to another instead of thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee beside thine husband . . . . And he shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter. . . . . . And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot . . . . And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed .

Furthermore, another primary bible based reason why many Christians believe that a fetus (or embryo) is alive, is because of this verse

. . . the life [soul] of the flesh is in the blood . . ." Leveticus 17:11

However, it says that the life of the flesh is IN the blood, not that it IS the ACTUAL blood. It took a long time to understand this verse, for many people, after the development of the microscope, to see that the blood carries oxygen and nutrients. There are two types of blood, but I would not think that this verse meant that "the life of the soul is in the type-A antibodies" or "the life of the flesh is because of the coagulating properties of blood".. Nooo, it is said THAT way, because blood carries AIR. 

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"The wicked go     astray from the womb, they err from their     birth, speaking lies. They    have venom like the venom of a serpent. ...  Let   them vanish like water    that runs away, like grass let them be trodden  down   and wither. Let them   be like the snail which dissolves into slime,  like the  untimely birth that   never sees the sun." (Psalms 58:3-8)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"When men strive         together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is miscarriage,    and    yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined according    as the    woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges     determine.    If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye    for eye, tooth    for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn,    wound for wound,   stripe for stripe."[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Exodus 21:22-25

Fetuses don't have teeth.. and never in history have. 

Furthermore, God called for the MANDATORY killings of all of the FIRSTBORN BABIES.. 
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"And Moses said,     'Thus says the Lord: About midnight I will     go forth in the midst of   Egypt  and all the first-born in the land of Egypt     shall die; from the   first-born  of Pharaoh who sits upon his throne, even    to the first-born   of the maidservant  who is behind the mill; and all the   first-born of the  cattle.'" (Exodus  11:4-5)[/FONT]

In addition, here is another order from God
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"...go and smite     Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they     have; do not spare them,  but   kill both man and woman, infant and suckling,     ox and sheep, camel  and   ass." (I Samuel 15:3. See also Deuteronomy     2:34 and 3:6; Joshua   10:28-40,  11:10-12, 14, 15, 20 and 21; and Judges  21:10-12.)

And finally, the worthlessness of babies less than a month old, by God:

[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"...all the first-born     males of the people of Israel,     from a month old and upward..."  (Numbers   3:40)[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"If the person         is from a month old up to five years old, your valuation shall be for    a  male  five shekels of silver, and for a female your valuation shall  be   three  shekels  of silver." (Leviticus 27:6)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
[/FONT] 





> Are you going to improve or should I just put you on ignore? I have far better things to do than spend time reading Scriptures that are falsely wielded as though they support a pov that they simply don't.



[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]_"Behold, I will     cause breath to enter you, and you shall     live."_ (Ezekiel 37:5)[/FONT]


My dear, you are welcome to ignore the bible. It won't bother ME one bit. God, on the other hand, might not be too happy...


----------



## JenT (Jan 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.
> ...



This is amazing.

If it wasn't alive, you wouldn't have to KILL it, would you.

It is alive. 

It is human.

And everything about who he or she will be is mapped out at conception.

He or she already is a fact, the only thing that will stop it is death.

Wombs of death was not the Creator's intention.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm gonna parse this down some cause these are getting too long. If I cut out something you just gotta know, feel free.



JD_2B said:


> So, in other words, you can be specific to the T as to when personhood begins, in your own mind, which you know is entirely subjective, but if the courts were to make a ruling that said the exact same thing I have been saying throughout this whole thread, that a woman has a right to privacy, regardless of any perceptions of sentience involved, then the courts would be wrong???
> And at the same time, THE RULING that IS IN EXISTENCE is not good enough for you, either, because it allows for abortion on demand during the 4th month also???
> Yeah I think I would want you to at least be clear with what the charges would be. To want something to be illegal, and criminal, you should at least know what fucking law was broken first.



I never defined when person hood begins , not 'to a T' anyway. If you need it cleared up for you yet again. I have simply stated that it is not logical to believe that someone attains person hood in some physiological sense immediately after conception. From that same physiological perspective, it is not logical to believe that a baby attains person hood, AGAIN from a physiological perspective, in the mere seconds of taking it's first breathe of O2. 



JD_2B said:


> Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
> Do you SEE how your argument is illogical?? Do not apply some rhetoric to emotional appeal to MINE, if you cannot apply that to your own.



THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE ARGUING. How can you be so blind as to not see that? YOU are arguing that a baby developed to 8 months, 7 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes (that would be pre-birth) has less rights than a baby that is developed to 9 months and 1 minute. OF COURSE I get that there would be no perceptible difference between 29 weeks and 6 days and 30 weeks. that isn't how development works. THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT. And for god knows what reason you can't see that you are using the EXACT same argument you attribute to me as defense of abortion at a different specific point in time, that there is some measurable difference in physiology from one second to the next that makes abortion okay prior to that second, but not okay after it. YOU get the fucking grip and think for a damn second.  











JD_2B said:


> Ummmm Just because someone points a gun at another person, and pulls the trigger, does not mean that they did it on purpose. There are often hunting accidents, and other types of gun related accidents, that do not have the intent required to get a murder/ manslaughter conviction, or any kind of conviction for that matter.
> Same goes with pregnant belly flopping, and speeding in one's car, even. The implication of any risk involved is neither consent to the risk, nor is it an indicator of some kind of malicious intent. YOUR comparison is FAR different from anything sport related. YOUR comparison is between a SPORT and an intentional, malicious act. Fucking get a grip
> 
> Nothing as long as there was no INTENT, you fucking dipshit
> ...



oh yes it could. You could still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If it were shown that you committed some gross negligence (i.e drive drunk, was speeding, driving recklessly, etc.) you most certainly would be open to prosecution. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, regardless of your intent, you most certainly will be tried and probably do time.

And now it is you that is maybe starting to get it. That's exactly why I can't tell you what the punishment would be. Follow the parallel; sure we may know someone had, a late term abortion/was in a car accident and the passenger was killed. We don't know why, we don't know whether it was intentional or not, we don't know the level of negligence on the part of the mother/driver. Every case is different. 



JD_2B said:


> And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???
> 
> It is absolutely ridiculous!!!



You're really not comparing a decision about life and death and make the best possible decision in a bad scenario to making a decision based on what would be most convenient for you, are you?




JD_2B said:


> Who fucking cares?? It is THE WOMAN'S UTERUS, and NOT YOURS TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR. Stop trying to be everyone's FATHER FIGURE. I don't give a shit whether the fucking fetus was 11 years old and had the brain capacity of a genius, and could potentially solve all of the worlds problems, if it is inside of MY BODY.. It's SIZE and MENTAL CAPACITY mean NOTHING to MY livelihood, if I DO NOT WANT IT IN ME.
> 
> Men do not get to poke their little wieners inside of a woman without FULL consent, including if a woman decide AFTER the sex STARTED that they do not want that part of a man's body within her own. If she THEN says NO, then he NEEDS TO PULL THE FUCK OUT, OR, in my state, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHOOT THE MOTHERFUCKER, EVEN IF WE ARE NOT THE ONES BEING RAPED, and are just WATCHING. This is BASIC fucking AUTONOMY, and HUMANITARIANISM. Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has any fucking RIGHT to tell someone that they have no right to remove something from their body, including with the use of force, for reasons of UNWANTEDNESS. Nobody.



Then take some fucking responsibility and DO something about it BEFORE it gets to the point where you would even have to entertain the notion of whether or not you're choosing to kill another human being. You have every opportunity in the world to keep that thing you don't want from being in you.

But at least you have cleared one thing up. I am safe in saying at this point it really doesn't matter to you whether it would a human life you are killing or not from a legal perspective, correct? That is even if you conceded that it was a human life that you were killing before it was born you would still say that a woman should not be prosecuted for that? Further it would be fine with you if we continued this conversation with me referring to the child is a human life at some point pre-birth because again that is not an aspect you are concerned with legally where abortion is concerned. I want to be crystal clear on this because I have a suspicion and if it can be confirmed we can move on without going in circle




JD_2B said:


> No- Your position totally LACKS evidence, and is based on "tradition"- the hundreds of years of people believing that a fetus's reflexive actions in the uterus, is somehow related to thinking. YOU have ZERO margin for error here, ALSO, because YOU have to PROVE that a zygote/ embryo/ fetus can survive even if the mother does not, despite the fact that infants can be cared for by ANYBODY. No margin for error there. Prove it. Should be easy, since you are sooooo dead set on it.



You kinda got real perturbed when you presumed that I was claiming to know the basis of your beliefs. Yet here you are doing the same to me. I try to refrain from name calling unless it's objectively accurate, so i feel safe in calling you a hypocrit. 




JD_2B said:


> The LAW is on our side already... So it is REALLY YOUR case that would need a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, proving that some woman, somewhere, killed a "sentient" fetus, and not just some reflexive growing human-looking blob of tissue and bone that happens to have human DNA. YOU have to prove sentience. YOU brought it up, YOU prove it. WE do not want women to be criminalized, and have already seen all of your ilk's failed attempts at proving sentience through all of the inconclusive studies and emotional rhetoric... which is proof enough for us.
> 
> 
> Thumb sucking is an involuntary action, as is all of the kicking and jabbing that occurs. Nobody said that the baby "leans" to breathe, but you do make a good point, that I can use: Fetuses do the action of "breathing", taking in and expiring amniotic fluid. THIS is definitely involuntary, and something that cannot be replicated, once the infant takes a breath of air. This is not ACTUAL breathing.. However, the FIRST breath of air, does indeed take some coaxing sometimes, and is generally an effect of a LABORED AND VOLUNTARY RESPONSE TO OXYGENATED AIR, and a COLDER ENVIRONMENT. One can easily argue that respiration, in and of itself, is involuntary, but NOT when it comes to that extra special, highly DIFFICULT first breath


.

I think we should just argue sentience for sentience sake rather than using it as a legal basis for abortion. I think that because unless I'm wrong in what I stated above whether the child is sentient or not pre-birth doesn't matter to you in terms of the legality of abortion. Agreed?




JD_2B said:


> This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth, so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components which give them antioxidant powers, or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:
> 
> Discordant Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Expression and Activity in Neonatal Hyperoxic Lung -- Mamo et al. 170 (3): 313 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine



I don't see anything disagreeable there. What's your point?




JD_2B said:


> Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.
> 
> Perinatal development of N-acetyltransferase in hepatic and extrahepatic tissues of guinea pigs.



Ummm Guinea Pigs? Really? Your argument is on a house of cards, JD. Breathing seems to be one thing that actually does matter to you in terms when a child can be killed. But you see breathing, in of itself, doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were just breathing that mattered I could hold my breathe and it would then it be legal for someone to kill me. So there must be something else that you think breathing triggers that somehow makes abortion okay before that point, but not okay after. What would that be?




JD_2B said:


> Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND *AND* AND AND *AND* AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
> Tough shit, and fuck off to ya!



What I mean by that is exactly what I mean by dependence. A child has no say in the matter of who it's parents are. All it can do is hope that those parents do what is in their best interests. Your reaction to that proves my earlier point about you lack of objectivism. You claimed to be this rationale objective person. 'Fuck off's and 'asshole' are not the hallmarks of the objective. I told you before that I was the objective one and I proved it. The objective TRUTH can be more powerful than any 'fuck off' or 'asshole' that can be uttered. Being called names doesn't bother me because I know me and know they aren't a reflection of the truth. 

A little more about me; I like to debate as you can see. I also like to be right. What I mean by right is on the side of the truth, which is different from a belief. That being the case there are all kinds of things in the course of conversation that do nothing to persuade people that your position is one of truth, and dear you have displayed an awful lot of those things.

-continuing to assert that someone's position is something other than what they have stated. Either call the person a liar and prove it or take their word for it. If you call them a liar and can't prove it you aren't any closer to showing your side is that of truth and you're probably further from it because from the perspective of everyone else you look childish and beaten.

- calling names and clear displays of emotion doesn't give one any credibility either. Yes I'm guilty of it too.

- an inabilityto objectively scrutinize one's own actions. This is the hardest one by far. People start throwing examples and scenarios around to bolster their argument then one of them hits a little too close to home. I don't believe what little I have stated about you and your situation has been inaccurate. If it has, believe me i want to know, because as I said above trying to argue things that aren't true or atriibute positions that don't exist is a waste of time. If they are factual, they simply are what they are. There shouldn't be any emotion attached to that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> > can you imagine a real conversation with this wind bag..she responds with a ratio 100 words to every one...it would be so overwhelming listen to her yap on without a breath..you would just give up..which I am sure she would consider some kind of validation her inane arguments are some how correct
> ...



Would those medical journals be showing that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply?  That a fetus is merely an organ of the mother's body, rather than an organism with a separate genetic structure?  Or that humans and dogs can interbreed?  Tell us, please, exactly which fascinating biological absurdity you've asserted here the medical journals prove correct.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...



Good luck. She lost me when with the link about guinea pigs and I guess it's proof that babies (which are not guinea pgs) have to consciously think about breathing when their born. This is all i could read out of the link. 



> Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.



Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is. 

Can someone give me the laymans terms for hepatic, extrahepatic, p-amniobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltranferase and how exactly they derived from that that HUMAN babies have to think about taking their first breath? Wrong link maybe? Conclusion I just can't see coming in the part of the paper that you can read that I can't? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > JenT said:
> ...



Apparently, considering the science and the verses and orders from God himself, that is not altogether true. 

In any event, if you want to think of YOUR pregnancy as alive, and a person, etc, then that is your perogative.. But opinions are not legally binding. I would never bind YOU to your opinion that a blastocyst is a person, if you were to miscarry it, and cause you to have to have your body tested in all kinds of ways, because it suddenly became EVIDENCE. 
On the same token, I respect all other women's personal opinions as well, and expect the same kindness to be reciprocal. 2/3 of all pregnancies result in miscarriage. Having a pregnancy that fails to complete is an act of NATURE. Whether it happens naturally or by some other source means nothing, then. 
* That also does not give anyone a womb of death, as you so melodramatically put it.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



My link was just as valid, if not MORE valid, as the link that Proletarian gave on slaughtered pigs, and their harvested embryos, during his little bullshit rant about how embryo transfers are possible. 
You obviously did not even LOOK at the journal article. At least I read the bullshit you guys post. The fact that you don't read mine is Clue #1 at your own ignorance. 



> > Hepatic and extrahepatic distribution and the perinatal developmental pattern of p-aminobenzoic acid (PABA)-N-acetyltransferase (E.C.2.3.1.5) in guinea pig liver, lung, and placenta were studied. In adult guinea pigs, kidney and small intestine enzyme specific activities were equivalent to hepatic activity. Lung enzyme activity was about 15% of that in adult liver. No sex differences in hepatic or extrahepatic distribution of enzyme levels were evident. The perinatal development study revealed that fetal as well as neonatal animals are capable of N-acetylation. *The peak in liver and lung activity occur between 3 and 8 days after birth. *Placenta has about 50% of adult liver activity for PABA-N-acetylation and it declines near term. These data indicate that extrahepatic organs of guinea pigs significantly contribute to PABA-N-acetylation.
> 
> 
> Now I'm not med student, Maybe JD is.
> ...



Then read the part in BOLD PRINT. As I explained before, those are all scientific terms. If you SIMPLY read the BOLD print, you will understand. You can also find another place, near that sentence, that says (I believe this was what you chose to skip over) all the stuff that I explained to you, as well. 

And no I do not need to be a fucking doctor to get the jist of the study. Nobody here needs to understand all the complex enzymatic terms listed, or the medications listed, to understand the plain english that is in this article, that you are choosing to make yourself ignorant of. 

Sentence #1:

The role of glucocorticoids in the regulation of vitamin K-dependent  carboxylase activity *was investigated in fetal and adult lung*.


Jump down to results:
The ADX-induced effect on carboxylase  activity was paralleled by an overall *enhancement of lung growth* in the  absence of endogenous glucocorticoids; *ADX alone led to a 15% increase in lung  mass over 6 days* (Table 1), but  previous studies reported normal lung morphology  (34). In contrast, ADX had no  significant effect on liver carboxylase activity or liver growth (data not  shown), a tissue noted for its synthesis of the coagulation-related Gla  proteins. *Absolute liver activity was 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




10-fold higher than that found in  lung, as has been previously described  
*
(and a little further down, third paragraph of results)
specific Gla *proteins  produced by one cell population may influence growth *and differentiation in  the other cell type. *Fetal type II cells isolated from embryonic day  19-20 embryonic lungs also responded to Dex with a 2.5-fold increase in  activity* 

Then down, in the discussion section.. 4th paragraph..

*The mechanism* whereby *dilation of conducting airway structures occurs* with  Dex treatment *is unknown*.

*If* MGP is important for  normal branching morphogenesis and perhaps vasculogenesis,* it is not clear why  the MGP null mice are born with apparently functional lungs. *

Does that help any?? I copied and pasted. No need to understand the study in full, to understand that it is an attempt at growing lung and liver tissue, and testing what elements need to be added to the equation for this to be plausible. Apparently, even though they can grow a whole HEART, they can't ever explain why the lungs function. 

I realize that this is not specifically saying that God makes everyone breathe, and all that- but the evidence is very strongly in favor of it. Anyways, that is my belief, and my religion and scientific beliefs all go very much hand in hand. The two just cannot exist without each other.


----------



## dilloduck (Jan 5, 2010)

sorta like men and women ?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 5, 2010)

I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.

The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1871688 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Then why didn't you object in the first place?





JD_2B said:


> > Well...  if that's your reasoning, we know to never take you seriously again
> 
> 
> I never took you seriously to begin with.



You had the chance to deny that was your reasoning. You didn't because, as you proved here, your entire argument is that it must be true because the bible says so.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > btw, the closest you came to actually posting a Scripture that was relevant, you blew up to be huge.
> ...




IT ALSO LISTS THE EXISTENCE OF GRASS BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE SUN.

Care to try again?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > eots said:
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Cecilie1200 again.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...


These two are almost amusing


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I'm gonna parse this down some cause these are getting too long. If I cut out something you just gotta know, feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand. 


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Under what fucking circumstances??? And why the fuck would a 30 week gestated fetus get fucking RIGHTS that a 29 week fetus should not also enjoy?? That, a fetus who, at the 29th week, 6th day, 11th hour, 59th minute and 59th second, did not also have?
> ...



I am merely illustrating that the argument you gave me, initially, that a fetus becomes human and thinking at some arbitrary point, which is completely unknown to you, even, is AS difficult to explain as what you claimed was illogical in my own arguments. 
As such, if it is unknown and impossible to perceive the exact moment of personhood in any other timeframe during gestation, then there is no need to try to expand our laws on this lack of knowledge, and mere PERCEPTION (emotion based) of quickening. 
As such, this body is still mine, and legally, a person is not a person until they are born. 



> oh yes it could. You could still be convicted of vehicular manslaughter. If it were shown that you committed some gross negligence (i.e drive drunk, was speeding, driving recklessly, etc.) you most certainly would be open to prosecution. If you drive drunk and kill your friend, regardless of your intent, you most certainly will be tried and probably do time.



Noooo.. If the person did not know that their actions were negligent, then nothing will happen. Maybe a civil trial, that is all. 
Tort negligence is a FAR CRY from criminal court!! Also, with the pregnant woman, how could anyone charge someone with murder or manslaughter, or any other homicide charge, when nobody can say with any objective clarity that her fetus was a person, and when speeding is a common occurrance, the simple fact being that some areas happen to have lower speed limits than others. In Europe, people can drive as fast as they want! That has nothing to do with breaking the laws or negligence!!!



> And now it is you that is maybe starting to get it. That's exactly why I can't tell you what the punishment would be. Follow the parallel; sure we may know someone had, a late term abortion/was in a car accident and the passenger was killed. We don't know why, we don't know whether it was intentional or not, we don't know the level of negligence on the part of the mother/driver. Every case is different.



Tort Law... Look it up. Negligence does not equate to mens rea. (intent)

I have no problem with someone getting SUED for causing a woman to miscarry.. I just do not see the point in treating someone like a criminal, unless something criminal (intentional and unlawful) actually happened. 




> > And AGAIN- in the life of the mother scenarios- WHY would it be somehow BETTER for the doctors to save a woman's life, when they can just as easily C-Section the fetus?? YOU are the one calling THIS VERY FETUS a person, and wanting it to have the rights of citizenship.. Why do YOU think that there is a "Health" RIGHT that women have, that their "fetus-people" suddenly LOSE, just because the women's lives may be in danger???
> >
> > It is absolutely ridiculous!!!
> 
> ...



You support this in the first trimester...  

You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you? 

Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.






> Then take some fucking responsibility and DO something about it BEFORE it gets to the point where you would even have to entertain the notion of whether or not you're choosing to kill another human being. You have every opportunity in the world to keep that thing you don't want from being in you.



Why should anyone do that, when the only reason why anyone would claim personhood exists is at some point that is completely subjective. 

Subjective ALSO means that it is up to the individual to decide. Deal. 




> But at least you have cleared one thing up. I am safe in saying at this point it really doesn't matter to you whether it would a human life you are killing or not from a legal perspective, correct? That is even if you conceded that it was a human life that you were killing before it was born you would still say that a woman should not be prosecuted for that?



Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?? I have answered this for you a million times. 
I have agreed that it is human. I would not ever concede that any woman should have to be a state sanctioned baby oven for 9 months, for any reason, much less the emotional hyperbole that you spew on here daily about some perceived sentience, which, in your own words, cannot be determined to a "T", before birth. 
Personhood, by your own admission, even, cannot be established before birth, without subjectivity. 
Ring around the fuckin rosey.




> Further it would be fine with you if we continued this conversation with me referring to the child is a human life at some point pre-birth because again that is not an aspect you are concerned with legally where abortion is concerned. I want to be crystal clear on this because I have a suspicion and if it can be confirmed we can move on without going in circle



I could care less from a legal standpoint, as I have very clearly repeated to you a hundred fucking times already, whether it is sentient or not. 
From a physiological perspective, it being a "life" should not be measured based on sentience, and it could just as easily be said that because (square fucking one again) it was growing since conception, then the "life" is just as easily perceived that way. 
NEITHER indicated personhood, or some ability for it to survive without the woman being alive, and therefore the woman's personhood takes priority. 

If you want to call it "an almost person" I can go along with that..

Furthermore, you should not feel so triumphant here. You have, in no way, changed my opinions on personhood or when life begins other than the first breath, sentience, etc.. None of this has any consequence to me in my beliefs about abortion or any miscarriage or stillbirth, either induced or otherwise, being a non punishable act. 

The only thing you have succeeded in doing is proving to me your lack of understanding of my position, over the course of this thread, and constantly asked me to repeat it. Whoop tee fucking doo. FYI- I hate repeating myself over and over again. Start reading for comprehension. 



> You kinda got real perturbed when you presumed that I was claiming to know the basis of your beliefs. Yet here you are doing the same to me. I try to refrain from name calling unless it's objectively accurate, so i feel safe in calling you a hypocrit.


Considering you don't even know how to SPELL hypocrite, I will now LAUGH in your FACE. 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! 

.



> I think we should just argue sentience for sentience sake rather than using it as a legal basis for abortion. I think that because unless I'm wrong in what I stated above whether the child is sentient or not pre-birth doesn't matter to you in terms of the legality of abortion. Agreed?


Good fucking GOD. This again??? How many fucking times do I have to repeat myself you fucking moron?????




> > This is because premature infants lack the antioxidants needed to be able to survive the birth,* so they need a special mixture of oxygen and other components* which give them antioxidant powers, *or else they will suffer from chronic pulmonary toxicity disorders, lung injury, etc, which can also happen in full term infants who are treated with high concentrations of O2*, as shown in the PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNAL ARTICLE BELOW:
> >
> > Discordant Extracellular Superoxide Dismutase Expression and Activity in Neonatal Hyperoxic Lung -- Mamo et al. 170 (3): 313 -- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
> 
> ...



This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow. 


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, it appears that breathing for newborns IS something that IS labored, just like someone with emphysema (who exerts as much as 75% of their energy, focusing on breathing) for the first 3 to 8 days after birth. HENCE, breathing is, right after birth, a VOLUNTARY, or at least, MORE VOLUNTARY THAN NOT, activity. You can see THIS medical journal peer reviewed article as MORE fucking proof.
> ...



Strawman. All you have done is try to negate the BEGINNING POINT of when someone becomes alive, by saying that a person who has already breathed, and hence, is already alive, were to hold their fucking breath, would be "allowed to be killed".  That is not even a logical argument in the first place. 
First, you want to try to misrepresent the study on breathing to claim that "holding ones breath" (in ones lungs, no less) somehow makes them no longer alive, and at the same time, that killing them is even possible, if they were no longer alive by this fucking EPIC FAIL ludicris standard. 

Breathing is the BEGINNING. Holding breath is ALSO breathing, fucking dummy. And it does not MATTER which animal is chosen to do the research on, either. Plus, it was LAB RATS, not fucking guinea pigs, you fucking ignorant dipshit!!!!! Christ!!!! 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Fuck off. If that was not a vicious insult to the kind of person I am, or kind of mother I AM, in spite of you knowing NOTHING ABOUT ME PERSONALLY, just because I take the political and legal position to support a woman's right to choose, and understand a hell of a lot more about the subject than you do, then I don't know what is. Fuck off, I say!!! You JUST NEED TO SAY THOSE THINGS TO JUSTIFY YOUR NOT BEING CAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THE FACT THAT A FETUS CANNOT BE CARED FOR BY JUST ANYONE, AND *AND* AND AND *AND* AND AND THAT THE MOTHER MUST LIVE FOR IT TO EVEN BE CARED FOR BY ONE.
> ...



Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS. 
You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy..  and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT. 

You think whatever you want to think about us women and abortion. I will pray that God gives YOU a uterus, because if MEN HAD BABIES, things would be a LOT DIFFERENT. Paternity leave for 12 weeks, not just six..  Abortions galore... Same sex marriage would probably be ENCOURAGED, even. LOL!!!

But, in REALITY, Bernie, You got NO FUCKING CHOICE in the matter, and you NEVER REALLY WILL. Too fucking bad for you.. boo to the fucking hoo. 


> A little more about me; I like to debate as you can see. I also like to be right. What I mean by right is on the side of the truth, which is different from a belief. That being the case there are all kinds of things in the course of conversation that do nothing to persuade people that your position is one of truth, and dear you have displayed an awful lot of those things.




Please see the first line of this very post that you responded to me with. 
That is not truth- that is opinion and opinions are SUBJECTIVE. 
You have the right to your individual opinion. I am pro choice, and I support the choices of any pro lifer to make for his or her own individual body. THAT is not where the truth ends with me, but it is where this dialogue ends with YOU. 




> -continuing to assert that someone's position is something other than what they have stated. Either call the person a liar and prove it or take their word for it. If you call them a liar and can't prove it you aren't any closer to showing your side is that of truth and you're probably further from it because from the perspective of everyone else you look childish and beaten.
> 
> - calling names and clear displays of emotion doesn't give one any credibility either. Yes I'm guilty of it too.
> 
> - an inabilityto objectively scrutinize one's own actions. This is the hardest one by far. People start throwing examples and scenarios around to bolster their argument then one of them hits a little too close to home. I don't believe what little I have stated about you and your situation has been inaccurate. If it has, believe me i want to know, because as I said above trying to argue things that aren't true or atriibute positions that don't exist is a waste of time. If they are factual, they simply are what they are. There shouldn't be any emotion attached to that.



It is YOUR ilk attaching emotion to the debate..  Who on my side of the debate has EVER attempted to use a picture of a fucking six year old to illustrate their point???

Good bye.. You are an idiot. And I state that as a FACT, not as emo rhetoric. 

No matter what position one takes on abortion, depending on the crowd in front of them, they are bound to take some fire. Pro life, pro choice.. it does not matter. It is a highly personal decision that should be left to the individual, not the masses, and NEVER to a jury of one's peers.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.
> 
> The paragraph I quoted is from the second link. I said that's all I can read because that's all I can read. I don't have the ability to view the entire article, but it along with the last link at the very least I can tell indicate how lungs develop. Okay, even though I don't really understand all of it, I'll assume those guys no what they're doing. What exactly is that you think these links do for your position that it's okay to kill a baby before it breathes, but not after?



Aw fuck I just saw this.. 

OK fine. The studies (there are other links you are ignoring also) show that a premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age, if you count gestational age as well. I guess you skipped over that part. 

Babies born prematurely need extra components added to their air in order to antioxidate the air, and keep them alive, thereby avoiding death.. 

It also says in another study that growing fetal tissue and adding components to a certain group is supposed to give the preemies or full term births the capacity to breathe, but that study still does not understand how the born organism is even CAPABLE of breathing, when they are missing certain components that had been previously shown to aid somehow in breathing. 

There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING. 

There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing. 

If they can't explain how newborn babies BEGIN to breathe.. which is one of the oldest questions in the history of man, then maybe, just maybe- there is a greater being amongst us who does unbelievable things, like giving us life, and such. MAYBE. 

The difference between the breathing studies and the fetal sentience studies is that with the fetal sentience studies, they cannot EVEN conclude that the fetus is making voluntary movements. 
In the breathing studies, it is conclusive that in spite of the components that scientists know about that are supposed to aid in breathing NOT being present in the premature baby, or full term ones, they DO breathe anyways. 

You cannot even BEGIN to compare studies that cannot even conclude that the fetus made a voluntary movement in the uterus (as if to be claiming sentience), to one that concludes that in spite of missing certain components that science requires for the baby to breathe, it breathes anyways, and I will explain why here:

IF the study does not even CONCLUDE that the fetus made voluntary movements, then there is no way of even beginning to determine how those movements were made, or WHY.

In the studies I posted, it IS conclusive that babies can breathe even when they lack certain necessary components to do so. Hence, MORE studies can be done on HOW that happened.. It can be ELABORATED on. They can FIGURE OUT how and why a fetus of the same age does not have the same level of response that a newborn has. They can figure out how a born baby who breathes does so like as if it were magic. 

There is NOTHING in your study that can be elaborated on. Do you comprende????


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 6, 2010)

Quick correction (er restatement of something I already said.....twice!).  I haven't posted a single link/article/journal in this thread. There is no 'your study' where I'm concerned.  Do YOU comprehend? 

As to the rest of the above, I would probably agree with all of it. Sure I'd entertain the notion that that first breathe is god breathing life into the child. The problem with your postion is that if you believe that's what's happening you would have to admit that is pretty convenient to acknowledge the will of god at one point, but deny it prior to that point. You can have your opinion that nothing, even a human life, has a right to your body at any point, but do you seriously think that would be God's will?

The reason we go round in circles that cause you such frustration is because your arguments make it extremely difficult to define what parameters your argument falls under. I ask you yes or no questions and you reply with paragraph long diatribes. Does sentience matter to you from a legal perspective matter to you?, is a yes or no question. If nothing has the right to your body, 'nothing' would include sentient, concious, human beings, hell even beings that make voluntary actions (which I accept unborn babies probably don't). Yet you continue to argue when sentience does or doesn't begin as if it does matter to you. When sentience begins, when a human being is a human being, all that I believe is a discussion for another time at this point. The only thing I am trying to make sense of is what is so signifcant to you about a first breath that makes killing before that point okay, but not after?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



::sigh::  I realize that the differences between species simply don't exist in your mind - because if you ever admit that they exist, you'll have to give up your dream of having puppies - but please do call me when the smokescreen of scientific jargon you're trying to hide behind involves HUMAN BEINGS.  I don't really give a flying fuck about the physiology of other animals in a discussion of killing human fetuses, and I doubt anyone else here does, either.


----------



## Cal (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll keep this short cause I know you're just dieing to get at the other post. The first link you posted I get, didn't know that, but okay, makes sense. Not sure what you think it is evidence of as far as your position.
> ...



God Dang, I'd hate to hear you talk in real life .


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> This is about breathing being the first signs of life.





Where did you go to school?





> you fucking ignorant dipshit!!!!! Christ!!!!






> How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass  assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has  NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power  and control





Pop quiz: 
Can your dog get you pregnant?
When does life begin in humans?

This test is 65% f your grade for the class.


> It is YOUR ilk attaching emotion to the debate..



Cry for us again bout how evil men are oppressing you


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

> premature baby of a certain age has far better lung function and  response than a fetus still in the uterus of the same age





> One of the central unresolved questions in mammalian biology is how a  mother knows when to give birth. Scientists studying mice have now found  evidence that the maturing lungs of a fetus release a protein that  initiates the process.
> 
> If also true in women, the finding could  provide insight into the causes of premature births and suggest ways of  preventing them.


Fetal lungs tell mom when to deliver baby. - Free Online Library




JD_2B said:


> There is NO scientific explanation for BREATHING.




GCSE Science/Breathing and Respiration - Wikibooks, collection of open-content textbooks

HowStuffWorks "How Your Lungs Work"


> There are all kinds of scientific explanation for lung ACTIVITY, but  ACTIVITY is not the same as breathing.


----------



## JenT (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Do you honestly call this debate? All you did was quote every verse that had the word "breath" in it, but they had nothing to do with the subject or add a shred of credence to your claims whatsoever.
> ...



I have yet to read all of this because my time is so limited, but I read the part about your claim of the Bible prescribing abortion.

JD, the problem isn't in the Word, the problem is your heart and how you're looking to twist it to what you want it to mean. If Planned Parenthood wants to provide abortions by having the woman go to church, pray and be prayed over asking for God's will and sprinkling some of the dust at the temple in her drink that she would lose the baby if God judged it to be so...well that just sounds a lot different from lying down and having abortion utensils shred apart infants in the womb and forcing them out.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

Part of the problem here is that so many people confuse the signs by which humans can see that life is present with life itself.  This is foolish and shortsighted, given that the parameters change constantly with our growing knowledge and technology.  It is especially foolish to attempt to interpret the Bible as some sort of definitive scientific statement on what constitutes life, rather than wording chosen to coincide with the technological level of the people at that time.  What truly matters about what the Bible says is the larger context of the lessons and attitudes it is trying to teach.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

The bible in all its versions is a piece of poorly written fiction with no place in intelligent discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 6, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1875783 said:
			
		

> The bible in all its versions is a piece of poorly written fiction with no place in intelligent discussion.



Also not true on several levels, completely aside from its veracity.  Even liberal English professors recognize the Bible as a great work of literature, quite complex and nuanced.  In addition, as the basis for the beliefs, morals, and life decisions of millions of people all over the world, it has a rightful place in any discussion of human behavior and morality.  To try to ignore it or pretend it away is akin to trying to discuss American jurisprudence while dismissing the existence of British common law, from which much of the founding Americans derived their attitudes toward and understanding of law.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

> Even liberal English professors recognize the Bible as a great work of  literature, quite complex and nuanced



Self contradictory and containing geographical and chronological errors, it is poorly written historical fiction.


> In addition, as the basis for the beliefs, morals, and life decisions of  millions of people all over the world, it has a rightful place in any  discussion of human behavior and morality



That stupid people believe it does not mean it has any place in intelligent discussion. Children believe in the Coca Cola Santa and the Tooth fairy- should we argue over Saint Nick's views on fiscal policy?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Quick correction (er restatement of something I already said.....twice!).  I haven't posted a single link/article/journal in this thread. There is no 'your study' where I'm concerned.  Do YOU comprehend?



Si, Of course I comprehend. Unlike you, who has only me posting responses on here, I have to keep up with... what is it up to now, FIVE? people?

There are You, Jen, Cecile, Pro, and a couple of stragglers as well. Can you understand that, and stop being so freaking inflammatory with me, JUST because it takes me longer than 12 hours to respond to YOUR individual post, and stop saying I am ignoring your points, as a result... or not act like I am a FUCKING RETARD just because I do not fucking keep a tally here of who is posting what link?? Can you please practice what you preach???



> As to the rest of the above, I would probably agree with all of it. Sure I'd entertain the notion that that first breathe is god breathing life into the child. The problem with your postion is that if you believe that's what's happening you would have to admit that is pretty convenient to acknowledge the will of god at one point, but deny it prior to that point. You can have your opinion that nothing, even a human life, has a right to your body at any point, but do you seriously think that would be God's will?



Absolutely!! I think that even God understands that a miscarried embryo is not a person. I think that bringing God's will into pregnancy arguments forces a person to step back and consider the sheer percentage of pregnancies that miscarry anyways. One should not say "It is not God's will that one CHOOSE to miscarry/ use ones body as they see fit" and at the same time expect someone to believe that the miscarriages experienced in 2/3 of all pregnancies should somehow have anything to do with Gods will. Especially when you refer to it as "killing". How one can say that abortion is killing something, and turn around and lay out in verse how God has this whole plan in store.never considering the miscarriages that happen regularly, is preposterous. 
Do you think that in every pregnancy, if it is God's will to breathe life into the born infant, that the woman should go ahead and gestate to full term, in anticipation of seeing God's work be done? Because I say that this is a DUAL willingness issue, and not simply a one way command. 
And this may be a completely opposing comment on everything said before, but:
I also CAN not believe or disbelieve that God causes miscarriages, or that God's will has any relevance in a pregnancy.. I don't care how many people say "Oh the miscarriage HE caused was for some good reason, of course!" and invariably dismiss the act of killing, the act that these very same people claim is murder. Whether it is his will that this happens or not, is entirely moot on both points. If he DID cause miscarriages, and it was "for good reason", then that frees the woman to also have "good reasons" to induce miscarriage herself. What would Jesus do? On the other side of it, if God has no will when it comes to miscarriages, then the entire issue of pregnancy being God's will is entirely moot, as this would mean that his will is not in effect until the child is born, anyways. 



> The reason we go round in circles that cause you such frustration is because your arguments make it extremely difficult to define what parameters your argument falls under. I ask you yes or no questions and you reply with paragraph long diatribes.



This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here, but not everything is Black and White. MANY things deserve an adequate explanation, which I take pride in having and being capable of giving. 
If my explanations are hard to fathom, it is only because it is very difficult for someone who has invested this much emotional energy into their beliefs, to be able to even prepare to begin to think in a different way. And that was not a cut down, either- I know exactly how you feel about this, and I understand that emotions play a very strong role in the way we perceive things, or are even capable of perceiving things that go beyond our emotional capability at any given time. 
Did you ever fight with someone you love.. someone who was so hurtful, that all of a sudden, that person was just the ugliest thing you had ever seen, and you could not believe that you were ever attracted to them? Or, after doing something bad, like lying to someone, you felt so bad about doing it, that when you looked in the mirror, even your best suit or jeans or whatever, and nicest shirt looked bad on you, and spending all day gelling your hair would not make you an attractive person.. And then telling the truth, you felt better, the person forgave you, etc, and then poof! Its like you are back to feeling normal again- Did you know that if you tell certain people that they have the best jobs for physical fitness, they will naturally be more fit than their counterparts, even if they eat more junk food and skip the gym, and all that? It is all mind over matter. 
Emotion CHANGES perception. Again, this stuff is probably a bit obtuse for you, but it is truthful, even though it is another concept that is difficult to explain. I will wait and see if you are on the same wavelength there, before going into any more detail, because you will either understand what I am saying, or not, and I do not want to talk down to you or assume that you wont understand that concept. 



> Does sentience matter to you from a legal perspective matter to you?, is a yes or no question.



As I said before NO. 



> If nothing has the right to your body, 'nothing' would include sentient, concious, human beings, hell even beings that make voluntary actions (which I accept unborn babies probably don't). Yet you continue to argue when sentience does or doesn't begin as if it does matter to you.



As I said before, It matters to me PERSONALLY. Legally, no. Personally, I think that I would feel better about a late term abortion, if I absolutely had to have one, if the fetus had some kind of anesthesia first, and that would be only because I do not know how the fetus processes pain. Legally, I don't think any standard of care should be given to fetuses. I have said ALL of this, a hundred and twenty three times before. 

PS Every time I go into a "diatribe" as you put it, it is because I am helping you to understand my opinions. There is a simple YES with no understanding, and then there is a YES with an explanation, and understanding of that YES. 




> When sentience begins, when a human being is a human being, all that I believe is a discussion for another time at this point. The only thing I am trying to make sense of is what is so signifcant to you about a first breath that makes killing before that point okay, but not after?



<sigh>

I am sooooo not repeating the last 20 pages again, for another 20 pages. I do not believe killing is involved. I have explained all of THIS a hundred and twenty times as well. Review the thread if you need clarity, rather than wasting my time, please.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

> This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here,  but not everything is Black and White



Says the woman who posted this:



JD_2B said:


> This is a very odd story indeed... However, it  sounds like they just decided to have an abortion a month too late for  legal standing.
> If the autopsy comes back that the fetus had taken a  breath of air, it will (and should) count as a homicide, because the  fetus would have no longer been a fetus, but as of taking that first  vital breath on its own, it automatically becomes a premature infant  baby.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.



Not what I said at all. I indeed can claim that a woman is killing a person during pregnancy. What I can not claim is the exact cut off point of when that would be. I think it is reasonable to believe that it occurs at some point during the pregnancy simply because it is NOT reasonable to believe that all of the qualifiers that would need to be in place for you to consider it a person occurr at a single moment in time. You have defined that moment in time taking the first breath. Since that isn't reasonable deductive logic should tell you it occurrs before that.



JD_2B said:


> You support this in the first trimester...
> 
> You are not telling us that this was just a lie, are you?
> 
> Why are you dodging the question? You love stalling.



I'm not. I don't think there should be a legal issue invovled for abortion in the first trimester because I am reasonably confident at that point we aren't dealing with a sentient being.



JD_2B said:


> Why do you keep asking me the same question over and over again?? I have answered this for you a million times.
> I have agreed that it is human. I would not ever concede that any woman should have to be a state sanctioned baby oven for 9 months, for any reason, much less the emotional hyperbole that you spew on here daily about some perceived sentience, which, in your own words, cannot be determined to a "T", before birth.
> Personhood, by your own admission, even, cannot be established before birth, without subjectivity.
> Ring around the fuckin rosey.



I think you need consider the subtle difference between determing WHEN something happens and IF it happens. An anology would be that we can't nail to the second either, when a plant seed germinates, regardless we still know it happened by what follows (a plant).



JD_2B said:


> I could care less from a legal standpoint, as I have very clearly repeated to you a hundred fucking times already, whether it is sentient or not.
> From a physiological perspective, it being a "life" should not be measured based on sentience, and it could just as easily be said that because (square fucking one again) it was growing since conception, then the "life" is just as easily perceived that way.
> NEITHER indicated personhood, or some ability for it to survive without the woman being alive, and therefore the woman's personhood takes priority.
> 
> If you want to call it "an almost person" I can go along with that..



And yet it so damn hard for you to admit that the reality of th above is that you believe there should be no legal or moral objection to a woman taking a human/human being/person/flavor of the week before it takes its first breath. 

Because if you don't care if it is a person/human/human being/what you consider life post birth, arguing all this crap about when sentience occurs, when consciousness occurs, when voluntary actions occur, when personhood occurs is irrelevant. There's no point in that discussion anymore. I understand you don't BELIEVE it's any of those things prior to taking it's first breathe, but you have stated it doesn't matter to you what the truth is. Your argument is simply that the woman has autonomy no matter and trumps everything, therefore taking another human life/human/person is okay. We could even give pre-born babies legal status as human beings/human/person etc. What you would really have us do is re-write the laws to saying that killing another innocent human being/person/human is illegal WITH THE EXCEPTION of before it takes its first breath  Would you admit that?  



JD_2B said:


> This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.



A heart beat can be considered as being before the first signs of life now? YOU try to follow. Your links are all about lung development. Not mental development. Not sentience. Not personhood. None of them link there studies about lung development to those concepts. That the first breath in of itself, is a first sign of life, that it is the threshold for your legal objection to killing a child given all of the other independent bilogical working of the human body at that point is really utter nonsense.



JD_2B said:


> Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
> The ONLY other people that have said something to me that was demeaning towards my parenting skills are the ones I ended up getting injunctions against, because they were ABUSERS.
> You sit here and act like you are reading a relevant medical journal article, after posting medical journal articles yourself (the music study, I believe?) and then turn them around as if only a doctor can read them, and try to shrug them off. THEN, because YOU failed to educate yourself with the information given to you, you ALSO try to discount the study based on the test group mammal used???? Are you on fucking CRACK??????? What is WRONG with you? You want to use ONE inconclusive study about movements to music, as the entire basis of your ridiculous claim that fetuses are people, and women who choose to end the pregnancy are criminals, but NOT criminals if they do it at a certain stage of the pregnancy, or under late term circumstances that YOU deem worthy..  and then you COMPLETELY ignore anything else of factual merit that comes your way. You are SUCH a poster boy for the pro life movement. SO TOTALLY IGNORANT, not to mention a CONTRADICTORY ASSHOLE in the way you present your fucking case. So again, I say- Fuck off. And yes I mean it. I am the only person in this whole dialogue that has even TRIED to keep an open mind, and I have fucking HAD IT.
> 
> ...



Just proving a point is all. Cut the bullshit indignation schtick. I never said anything about or have judged your parenting. I don't know enough about you to credibly do that.



JD_2B said:


> Absolutely!! I think that even God understands that a miscarried embryo is not a person. I think that bringing God's will into pregnancy arguments forces a person to step back and consider the sheer percentage of pregnancies that miscarry anyways. One should not say "It is not God's will that one CHOOSE to miscarry/ use ones body as they see fit" and at the same time expect someone to believe that the miscarriages experienced in 2/3 of all pregnancies should somehow have anything to do with Gods will. Especially when you refer to it as "killing". How one can say that abortion is killing something, and turn around and lay out in verse how God has this whole plan in store.never considering the miscarriages that happen regularly, is preposterous.
> Do you think that in every pregnancy, if it is God's will to breathe life into the born infant, that the woman should go ahead and gestate to full term, in anticipation of seeing God's work be done? Because I say that this is a DUAL willingness issue, and not simply a one way command.
> And this may be a completely opposing comment on everything said before, but:
> I also CAN not believe or disbelieve that God causes miscarriages, or that God's will has any relevance in a pregnancy.. I don't care how many people say "Oh the miscarriage HE caused was for some good reason, of course!" and invariably dismiss the act of killing, the act that these very same people claim is murder. Whether it is his will that this happens or not, is entirely moot on both points. If he DID cause miscarriages, and it was "for good reason", then that frees the woman to also have "good reasons" to induce miscarriage herself. What would Jesus do? On the other side of it, if God has no will when it comes to miscarriages, then the entire issue of pregnancy being God's will is entirely moot, as this would mean that his will is not in effect until the child is born, anyways.



But your argument isn't accidental miscarriages. Your argument is that it is okay to intentionally END the pregnancy because of the woman's autonomy. Autonomy is more of a morality issue than a legal one I would say. Wouldn't you? What do you think god would think about that?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1876055 said:
			
		

> > This is not a YES or NO issue. Sorry to have to bust your bubble here,  but not everything is Black and White
> 
> 
> Says the woman who posted this:
> ...




That is the law. Go figure, right. What do you disagree with, here? The fact that this is the law, or the facts I have given you about what happens between gestation and infanthood?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > So, you cannot, from a physiological perspective, claim that a woman is killing a person, at any specific point prior to birth, because neither you nor anyone else can claim to know at what exact moment personhood begins. Our best bet, so far, has been with once it takes a breath, and legally speaking, that decision should stand.
> ...



You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You support this in the first trimester...
> ...



OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then. 



> I think you need consider the subtle difference between determing WHEN something happens and IF it happens. An anology would be that we can't nail to the second either, when a plant seed germinates, regardless we still know it happened by what follows (a plant).



Not always. Not all germinated seeds result in a plant. Just because some result CAN happen, does not mean it does. Actually, overall, GENERALLY the result is not the anticipated one, even. Especially in pregnancy.





> And yet it so damn hard for you to admit that the reality of th above is that you believe there should be no legal or moral objection to a woman taking a human/human being/person/flavor of the week before it takes its first breath.



I have fucking admitted this, a million fucking times. Stop acting like I have not. What is WRONG with you? I don't give a shit if someone has an "objection" to it. It is their decision to make for themselves, so they can make any objection to my decisions just as I can object to theirs. An objection doesn't mean squat. 




> *Because if you don't care if it is a person/human/human being/what you consider life post birth,* arguing all this crap about when sentience occurs, when consciousness occurs, when voluntary actions occur, when personhood occurs is irrelevant. There's no point in that discussion anymore. I understand you don't BELIEVE it's any of those things prior to taking it's first breathe, but you have stated it doesn't matter to you what the truth is. *Your argument is simply that the woman has autonomy no matter and trumps everything, therefore taking another human life/human/person is okay.* We could even give pre-born babies legal status as human beings/human/person etc. What you would really have us do is re-write the laws to saying that killing another innocent human being/person/human is illegal WITH THE EXCEPTION of before it takes its first breath  Would you admit that?



What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!! 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow.
> ...



Christ. Even YOU don't believe that a heartbeat is the first sign of life. Why would you even bother to spew such rhetoric then???
You know damn well that I do not believe that LIFE has begun until the infant breathes, so why why why would you continue to play make believe and bring up MOOT points like this one? 
One could JUST As easily say that the life processes begin at conception, but that is NOT ME. You keep forgetting- My argument, MY SOLE ARGUMENT is that life begins at fucking birth. Get it through your thick SKULL!!!



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit!! You fucking QUESTIONED MY ABILITY TO PARENT MY CHILD BASED ON MY STANCE ON ABORTION, YOU LYING FUCKING ASSHOLE. What's next? Are you going to question the safety and well being of my 10 year old now too??? claim that I am trying to kill him, just because I fucking support abortion??? How many times are you going to backpedal on your own ignorant ass assertions and personal attacks, before YOU realize that YOUR stance has NOTHING at all to do with life or death and everything to do with power and control of women???????????
> ...



Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB. 

What you said to me.. 



> Sure I can admit it. The issue here is perspective. Having the position you have you don't look at a lot from the babies perspective (even after it's born it seems). Thinking that a mother dieing and leaving her child behind and that someone will step in time before the child dies from simple lack of care is wishful thinking and an argument made simply because it's the most convenient one to make. You are still talking about who take responsibility. I am talking about the child's level of dependence. It is dependent on others to survive, period. It really doesn't care from whom or from how many people that care comes from. You like to saying woman should not have to suffer an unchosen pregnancy. *Maybe you need to consider if the child would choose you as a mother.*



You have gone through this whole thread making snide little comments like that, for lack of a better argument. Here alone, you try to say that the babies of a dead mother having someone to care for them (adoption, foster care, friends, relatives.. all of this happens ALL the time) is apparently "wishful thinking" and then you go ahead and turn ME into some kind of subhuman, all because I support the choices of people to abort, etc. You have a personal problem with me, and you need to get over it. 

And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible.




Says the woman says a sentient mind is created by the first breath...



> OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.


'


sentience =/= life

get a dictionary


> My argument, MY SOLE ARGUMENT is that life begins at fucking birth. Get  it through your thick SKULL!!!




So you recant your claims about sentience and the first breath?

BTW, life does begin at conception, by definition. What happened to you supposed knowing a lot about biology?


> Backpedaling little liar


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this.
> 
> 
> 
> OK so it is on you to prove that sentience and personhood begins at some point other than the first trimester, and that as such, life does not exist before then.



Actually no I don't have to prove that at all. We've agreed upon what my contention is, so for me to be right all I have to do is show you're wrong about when life begins. All I have to show is how ridiculous your contention is that all of the criteria by which you define life happens in the blink of any eye and the mere unconscious act of breathing somehow imbues a baby with personhood.




JD_2B said:


> What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!!



There's nothing emotional about it. It's simply the reality of your position. YOU made this about autonomy. YOU stated that autonomy renders whether or not it is a human life pre-brith irrelevent. YOU stated a woman should not have to have something in her body she doesn't want there, EVER. Now what logical difference should the babies location make? Why does the same level of a woman's personal autonomy no longer apply post birth? Because the baby took a gulp of air you aren't entitled to the same level of autonomy to be rid of it if you want to?



JD_2B said:


> Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB.
> 
> What you said to me..
> 
> You have gone through this whole thread making snide little comments like that, for lack of a better argument. Here alone, you try to say that the babies of a dead mother having someone to care for them (adoption, foster care, friends, relatives.. all of this happens ALL the time) is apparently "wishful thinking" and then you go ahead and turn ME into some kind of subhuman, all because I support the choices of people to abort, etc. You have a personal problem with me, and you need to get over it.



No I didn't degrade you at all. I suggested that you look at something from another perspective as oppossed to just your own. I suggested you exert what is referred to as empathy. I suggest you think really objectively and hard about whether I have made this personal. When it get's personal trust me you'll know cause like I said, I kinda have a thing for the truth.



JD_2B said:


> And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.



It isn't a code word. It would be the truth for any abortion occurring where a human life is taken and/or the mother's life isn't at stake. Unplanned, unwanted, bad timing, call it what you want. It's not what you wanted to have happen in that point in time. That is the definition of inconvenient. What I have a hard time getting is why you are so defensive about the use of the word. You have defended a woman's right to an abortion for ANY reason. Logically then you shouldn't really give a rats rear end if she takes a life because keeping it would be inconvenient because NOTHING trumps a woman's autonomy.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You have to prove that personhood exists at one point and not at another, for this to even be feasible. I have more than adequately covered this.
> ...



Again, feel free to feel however you would like to about it, but fetuses having rights in certain cases and not others, is illogical, because you make exceptions. And yes, if you were prosecuting a case, YOU would have the burden of proof that the fetus was what you call murdered. I have case law on my side, but YOUR contention is unprecedented. 
Also, I cannot understand why you would prosecute an 8 month pregnant woman for choosing to abort, and then turn around and defend a woman, because her life was somehow in danger. Get fucking real. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What a bunch of EMOTIONAL HYPERBOLE. I never fucking said that it was a non human or that it is okay for a woman to kill a born infant. Fuck off, indefinitely!!!
> ...



Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not. 
This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks. 
Furthermore, my position is fluid and consistent, while yours is spotty at best, allowing for abortion BY demand, if not ON demand. You are more than willing to allow a so called "person" to die, as a means to rescue another. It is THIS position that does not require any burden of proof to be allowed.. But the position that an 8 month pregnant woman should be charged with murder- the unprecedented position- is where YOU need to establish a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Autonomy is a valid defense in all situations that arise when it comes to "consequential damage" to ones own innards, if that person can show that whatever they were doing was a common event in their life, for example. Your law would NEVER hold up, so you can throw that penny into another well.. 


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Backpedaling little liar. You degraded me in a way that nobody deserves to be degraded, having known NOTHING about me besides this conversation, on this thread, on this tiny speck of web called USMB.
> ...



Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > And I have had quite enough of your little code word "inconvenient". All that does is try to imply that abortion by choice are all decided by some minor inconvenience and are not even fully weighed out by the woman. Fuck you pig.
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not. This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks.
> Furthermore, my position is fluid and consistent, while yours is spotty at best, allowing for abortion BY demand, if not ON demand. You are more than willing to allow a so called "person" to die, as a means to rescue another. It is THIS position that does not require any burden of proof to be allowed.. But the position that an 8 month pregnant woman should be charged with murder- the unprecedented position- is where YOU need to establish a preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt.
> Autonomy is a valid defense in all situations that arise when it comes to "consequential damage" to ones own innards, if that person can show that whatever they were doing was a common event in their life, for example. Your law would NEVER hold up, so you can throw that penny into another well..



Again I think it best to argue this topic on it's own merit. We have established personhood, legally, is irrelevant to you. Doing that I think will take a lot of the emotion out of the argument. Try to put your objective hat on here for a second and just look at the nuances of the argument itself. My postion is that person hood occurs sometime after the first trimester and before the baby takes it's first breath. Yours is that personhood begins at the first breath. Agreed so far? So you have defined a specific point in time it occurs. The best I am confident in is a span of time going from immediately before your specific point to the end of the first trimester. Still agreed? I'm pretty sure we've agreed on at least what our positions are at this point, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell forget about the subject matter entirely for a second. If you're presented with a question and you are given two answers to pick from, only one of which is correct, you can find out the answer one of two ways. 1) you can try to derive the actual answer or 2) you can show that one of the options CAN'T be the right answer, which in turn shows the other answer to be the right one. 

Do you see then why continuting to ask for evidence as if I actually need any is kind of silly? Sure I can look for evidence as to when person hood begins, which is pretty complex developmental process. Or I can just show that all that complex development doesn't come to head and create person hood at the specific point in time you defined. 

The other part of the argument is what is person hood. Are we even using the right term there or we both just understand what we mean by that at this point. Is it a soul, a level of sentience, cognition, just breathing? The last one is why I think your position is faulty, isn't there a lot more to being a person than just respiration? Is it reasonable to think that the first breath, 'activates' for lack of a better term, a whole bunch of other things that make a person a person at that specific point in time that weren't there seconds before?




JD_2B said:


> Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize.



Please be specific. I would really like to see what you consider emotional rhetoric. Suggesting a view from another perspective is NOT emotional rhetoric. Contrary to popular opinion, empathy is not an emotion. It is simply an attempt to understand another perspective. 



JD_2B said:


> Clearly you do not even comprehend the meaning of the word autonomy. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and look it up. Then, explore the reasons why YOU want to issue rights to a fetus that you deem to be a person, and continue to remove those SAME EXACT rights to CONVENIENCE the mother from having to be put on life support herself.



I guess autonomy was the best single word I could come with to describe the conditon or qualifier that you are saying can not be abridged that allows a woman to legally and morally be rid of something she doesn't want in her no matter what. If you have a better word for it I'm more than happy to use that. 




JD_2B said:


> I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.



This isn't some paradox, JD. The principle that applies to making a choice about who lives if the mother's life is at stake is the same principle under which I have an objection to late term abortions. It is about protecting human life to the best of our ability. Even in less than desirable circumstances. Like circumstaces where maybe it just wasn't the best timing or circumstances where you have to choose if your baby lives or you live. I simply have a hard time seeing how killing a person via late term abortion for any reason short sever medical circumstances would be the best decision for EVERYONE.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Location makes ALL the difference. It is inside of a living human being, a US Citizen, who happens to have rights. Once it is out, it is no longer an issue of location, and only a matter of whether it breathes or not. This, too, is established in case law, something that your position lacks.
> ...



I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people. 



> Doing that I think will take a lot of the emotion out of the argument. *Try to put your objective hat on here for a second and just look at the nuances of the argument itself.* My postion is that person hood occurs sometime after the first trimester and before the baby takes it's first breath. Yours is that personhood begins at the first breath. Agreed so far? So you have defined a specific point in time it occurs. The best I am confident in is a span of time going from immediately before your specific point to the end of the first trimester. Still agreed? I'm pretty sure we've agreed on at least what our positions are at this point, but correct me if I'm wrong. Hell forget about the subject matter entirely for a second. If you're presented with a question and you are given two answers to pick from, only one of which is correct, you can find out the answer one of two ways. 1) *you can try to derive the actual answer* or 2) *you can show that one of the options CAN'T be the right answer, which in turn shows the other answer to be the right one. *



Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:

#1 does not apply- you did not derive your answer from anything scientific or evidential in merit
and #2 cannot apply, if #1 does not apply to you, for the reasons listed. First, you must find out the clear answer and have some kind of proof or objective reasoning for it, before finding it. Therefore, there is no way of establishing some kind of empirical right or wrong to the non existent answer, being that the evidence to support it, is non existent. 

And in MY case- #1 DOES apply because the answer was a result of empirical studies, case law, and scientific research, and is a massive change, over time, from the original incorrect answer that I started out with, acquired the same way you got your current incorrect answer. In fact, my original answers were just as off base as yours- a mirror of what you believe. I later realized that it was a subjective POV, and did a LOT of research to come to find out the things I have shared with you on here.  My answer came with truth, not with emotional rhetoric.

As such, #2 also applies, because being that my answer is spawned FROM truths and empirical evidences, etc, I can then compare and contrast it to the Holy Bible, the very word from which even the concept of "right and wrong" became manifest, in all of the history of the world, and the very same teachings of morality (right and wrong) that the world, or the vast majority, thereof, bases THEIR beliefs, or at least, considers themselves to do. Because the science and religion shake hands, I know that my beliefs can most certainly be "right". 



> Do you see then why continuting to ask for evidence as if I actually need any is kind of silly? Sure I can look for evidence as to when person hood begins, which is pretty complex developmental process. Or I can just show that all that complex development doesn't come to head and create person hood at the specific point in time you defined.



You need evidence, if you want to prosecute women as murderers at any stage in a pregnancy. Tough shit. Grin and bear it. You are in the wrong forum, if you want to argue philosophy. Even if you want to just argue the science of it all, you would not succeed in a science forum, because YOU feel that evidence is not required to reach some kind of conclusion as the one you have already come to acquire. THAT is not being objective. THAT is being SUBJECTIVE and it is entirely based on your personal subjective gut instincts, which, by the way, is based wholly on EMOTION. 



> The other part of the argument is what is person hood. Are we even using the right term there or we both just understand what we mean by that at this point. Is it a soul, a level of sentience, cognition, just breathing? The last one is why I think your position is faulty, isn't there a lot more to being a person than just respiration? Is it reasonable to think that the first breath, 'activates' for lack of a better term, a whole bunch of other things that make a person a person at that specific point in time that weren't there seconds before?



Coming from one who refuses to read medical studies.. and claims to not need evidence of any sort, to reach the conclusion that personhood begins before birth, I do not care how unreasonable you think my studies, caselaw, etc, is- I have a basis for my claims, and you have none for yours. All of this hysterical repeating of the same thing over and over that you keep doing, will not make it true. You have GOT to stop turning this shit around on me. I swear I think that you are just trolling the thread, at this point. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bull. You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting data, and the only truth that you will EVER accept is the one that you have drawn up in your head, without any merit besides QUICKENING, and now you are simply trying to justify that conclusion, with STILL no evidence to back any of your assertions up, and above all, a claim that a "fetus person" is somehow equally as valuable as a woman, unless the woman's life is at stake, which suddenly makes the "fetus person" less deserving of those equal rights. I suggest YOU sit down and think about that before you come back here spewing all this nonsense and expecting anyone to empathize.
> ...



Empathy is the ability to relate to another person's EMOTIONS.. 


> One dictionary says that empathy is the identification with and understanding of anothers situation, feelings, and motives. It has also been described as the ability to put oneself in the other fellows place.
> 
> Empathy requires first of all that we comprehend the circumstances of someone else and second that we share the feelings that those circumstances provoke in him. Empathy involves our feeling another persons pain in our heart.
> 
> ...





> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly you do not even comprehend the meaning of the word autonomy. I suggest you buy a dictionary, and look it up. Then, explore the reasons why YOU want to issue rights to a fetus that you deem to be a person, and continue to remove those SAME EXACT rights to CONVENIENCE the mother from having to be put on life support herself.
> ...



That is NOT what you were saying about autonomy, however. You wrote (originally discussing the use of the word inconvenience as emotional rhetoric) "It isn't a code word. It would be *the truth for any abortion occurring where a human life is taken and/or the mother's life isn't at stake.* Unplanned, unwanted, bad timing, call it what you want.* It's not what you wanted to have happen in that point in time. *That is the definition of inconvenient. What I have a hard time getting is why you are so defensive about the use of the word. You have defended a woman's right to an abortion for ANY reason. *Logically then you shouldn't really give a rats rear end if she takes a life because keeping it would be inconvenient because NOTHING trumps a woman's autonomy*."

Hey guess what?? Abortion in the late months IS on demand. The fact that another human being orders it (a Doctor) makes no difference.. The woman MAINTAINS FULL autonomy, and the abortion is demanded or prescribed for that reason alone. It does not make a hill of beans difference if the doctor prescribed it for any REAL physical life endangerment, or any impeding endangerments to come. SHE HAS AUTONOMY. SHE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO SEEK OUT THE DOCTOR AND BEG THEM TO GIVE HER AN ABORTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT IT INSIDE OF HER. She has FULL autonomy, because she can threaten her own life, showing that the fetus is causing her a severe mental impairment. She can fake her way through the whole fucking thing, and there is not a DAMN thing you can do about it, because SHE IS THE KING OF HER DOMAIN- HER BODY- HER RIGHT- HER COMPLETE AND TOTAL AUTONOMY. Even if the abortion was not legal, like I said before, she CAN jump off a cliff, and do a belly flop. SHE HAS FULL AND 100% control over her VOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS, and because of that, she can control the inner, more involuntary things, as well. SHE IS AUTONOMOUS. She can move to another country for the summer, and ABORT IT THERE, ALSO. Making abortion illegal or convictable is NOT going to change HER MIND, if HER MIND, or her GUT INSTINCT tells her that SHE SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH A DELIVERY. 
PERIOD. Whatever implications YOU think should be involved for her making HER OWN BODILY DECISIONS are absolutely irrelevant to whether she MAKES that decision. 
That is AUTONOMY. Get it?????!

You REALLY do not understand how libertarian I am. I believe that if someone wants to smoke fucking CRACK all day, then there should be no law against it. It is THEIR body. If a crime occurs when that person is having withdrawal symptoms, then they should be tried with THAT crime, NOT the "crime" of autonomous decision making, no matter how physically debilitating, or dangerous that decision might have been! Why not outlaw all fast food restaurants, also- as they contribute to obesity, and fat people die young?? why not outlaw the use of high fructose corn syrup too, as it adds to American's sweet tooth, and causes people to consume 30% more calories a day than we did 30 years ago? Why not? I will tell you why not.. Because AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. We are individual, and our rights to life and happiness are INDIVIDUALLY DETERMINED THROUGH THE FORCE CALLED AUTONOMY. Do I make myself CRYSTAL CLEAR NOW???



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.
> ...



Bullshit. If this was about saving lives, rather than oppressing women, then, considering your "anti abortion in the late term" arguments, you would not be "pro abortion" for the mother's life during the later part of the pregnancy. You would be emphatically arguing for a C-section, and pushing for state supported life support for both the delivered fetus and the mother..  Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people.



Then you have two incompatible beliefs. If you care about personhood to the extent that killing a person is prosecutable then you can NOT be of the position that a woman can have an abortion for ANY reason and not be prosecuted because 'ANY' would include 'persons'. 



JD_2B said:


> Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:
> 
> #1 does not apply- you did not derive your answer from anything scientific or evidential in merit
> and #2 cannot apply, if #1 does not apply to you, for the reasons listed. First, you must find out the clear answer and have some kind of proof or objective reasoning for it, before finding it. Therefore, there is no way of establishing some kind of empirical right or wrong to the non existent answer, being that the evidence to support it, is non existent.



Would you agree that one of us has the true answer?  



JD_2B said:


> And in MY case- #1 DOES apply because the answer was a result of empirical studies, case law, and scientific research, and is a massive change, over time, from the original incorrect answer that I started out with, acquired the same way you got your current incorrect answer. In fact, my original answers were just as off base as yours- a mirror of what you believe. I later realized that it was a subjective POV, and did a LOT of research to come to find out the things I have shared with you on here.  My answer came with truth, not with emotional rhetoric.
> 
> As such, #2 also applies, because being that my answer is spawned FROM truths and empirical evidences, etc, I can then compare and contrast it to the Holy Bible, the very word from which even the concept of "right and wrong" became manifest, in all of the history of the world, and the very same teachings of morality (right and wrong) that the world, or the vast majority, thereof, bases THEIR beliefs, or at least, considers themselves to do. Because the science and religion shake hands, I know that my beliefs can most certainly be "right".



Well for starters case law you don't really get to count. Just becuase something is a law or has precedent doesn't make it right. There was an awful lot of case law justifying slavery as well. 

Secondly I find it hilarious that you think the articles you posted are somehow evidence of when personhood begins. All of your articles dealt with the issue how lungs develop. YOU have not provided any science to back your position either which is that the first breath is when person hood begins. There studies were about how the biology works, the conditions that need to be in place for the lungs to function once out of the womb. What you would like to slide under the rug and hope you don't have to provide evidence for is the the decidedly UNscientific leap you would like us to make that the act of the first breathe is what makes someone a person. 



JD_2B said:


> You need evidence, if you want to prosecute women as murderers at any stage in a pregnancy. Tough shit. Grin and bear it. You are in the wrong forum, if you want to argue philosophy. Even if you want to just argue the science of it all, you would not succeed in a science forum, because YOU feel that evidence is not required to reach some kind of conclusion as the one you have already come to acquire. THAT is not being objective. THAT is being SUBJECTIVE and it is entirely based on your personal subjective gut instincts, which, by the way, is based wholly on EMOTION.



First off I'm not really one to bastardize other people's work as you have. Again NOTHING you posted had anything to do scientifically with when personhood begins. It was about ling development. And you just hoped that we would accept your arbitrary definition defining that action as when personhood begins. To know if personhood begins at the point in time you state it does you first have to define personhoold which you really haven't done. Here are ALL of the defintions of person according to the dictionary.



> per·son  audio  (pûrsn) KEY
> 
> NOUN:
> 
> ...



I think you can agree that at least two of those defintions can be attributed to an unborn child at some point. So the reality is really it isn't whether someone is a person or not that you're arguing. it's something else. What? 




JD_2B said:


> Coming from one who refuses to read medical studies.. and claims to not need evidence of any sort, to reach the conclusion that personhood begins before birth, I do not care how unreasonable you think my studies, caselaw, etc, is- I have a basis for my claims, and you have none for yours. All of this hysterical repeating of the same thing over and over that you keep doing, will not make it true. You have GOT to stop turning this shit around on me. I swear I think that you are just trolling the thread, at this point.



Why isn't scientific evidence that shows you are wrong that the first breath equals person hood just as good evidence? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you have the proverbial balls to seek out that which does not support your postion? 



JD_2B said:


> Hey guess what?? Abortion in the late months IS on demand. The fact that another human being orders it (a Doctor) makes no difference.. The woman MAINTAINS FULL autonomy, and the abortion is demanded or prescribed for that reason alone. It does not make a hill of beans difference if the doctor prescribed it for any REAL physical life endangerment, or any impeding endangerments to come. SHE HAS AUTONOMY. SHE CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO SEEK OUT THE DOCTOR AND BEG THEM TO GIVE HER AN ABORTION BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE DOES NOT WANT IT INSIDE OF HER. She has FULL autonomy, because she can threaten her own life, showing that the fetus is causing her a severe mental impairment. She can fake her way through the whole fucking thing, and there is not a DAMN thing you can do about it, because SHE IS THE KING OF HER DOMAIN- HER BODY- HER RIGHT- HER COMPLETE AND TOTAL AUTONOMY. Even if the abortion was not legal, like I said before, she CAN jump off a cliff, and do a belly flop. SHE HAS FULL AND 100% control over her VOLUNTARY MOVEMENTS, and because of that, she can control the inner, more involuntary things, as well. SHE IS AUTONOMOUS. She can move to another country for the summer, and ABORT IT THERE, ALSO. Making abortion illegal or convictable is NOT going to change HER MIND, if HER MIND, or her GUT INSTINCT tells her that SHE SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH WITH A DELIVERY.
> PERIOD. Whatever implications YOU think should be involved for her making HER OWN BODILY DECISIONS are absolutely irrelevant to whether she MAKES that decision.
> That is AUTONOMY. Get it?????!



Yeah I think I see what you mean. I understand legality doesn't change what she could choose to do. But that's true of deciding to kill anyone really.



JD_2B said:


> You REALLY do not understand how libertarian I am. I believe that if someone wants to smoke fucking CRACK all day, then there should be no law against it. It is THEIR body. If a crime occurs when that person is having withdrawal symptoms, then they should be tried with THAT crime, NOT the "crime" of autonomous decision making, no matter how physically debilitating, or dangerous that decision might have been! Why not outlaw all fast food restaurants, also- as they contribute to obesity, and fat people die young?? why not outlaw the use of high fructose corn syrup too, as it adds to American's sweet tooth, and causes people to consume 30% more calories a day than we did 30 years ago? Why not? I will tell you why not.. Because AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. We are individual, and our rights to life and happiness are INDIVIDUALLY DETERMINED THROUGH THE FORCE CALLED AUTONOMY. Do I make myself CRYSTAL CLEAR NOW???



What America is or isn't really shouldn't have any bearing on whether we are free or not then. No law can prevent one from exercising autonomy. By extension then you would not have a right to life and happiness if you are not autonomous, correct? 

I believe in a lot of the same things you do. Right up to the point where the choices  people make negatively effect another person's right to life and happiness. At which point you agreed the should be held criminally accountable not for the choice, but for what they did to another person. If that's true then it really is person hood you care about as far as the legality of abortion. Which it would seem would require you to hold woman legally accountable for depriving a person (again, if simply for arguments sake you accept that at some point a baby becomes a person before birth), of life and happiness., correct?



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I am not going to entertain any more questions from you, until you answer the DRIVING question to your own illogical assertion that a perceived to be "Sentient" fetus (a person, let's imagine... having rights) has no rights when it comes to being aborted because the mother would probably die with it in her, and all the while it really is a person, having full and equal rights to any other born person. Fucking explain yourself, because you make NO sense, whatsoever. That is the most inane shit I have ever fucking heard of.
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> fetuses having rights in certain cases and not others, is illogical.






JD_2B said:


> Location makes ALL the difference.






In the same post.....





> You have a thing for using emotional rhetoric based on NO supporting  data






> Fucking illogical moron






> Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but  wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or  fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.



Right.... like sending Charles Manson to prison and not a man who defends himself against a robber is inconsistent and illogical 


BTW, fluid is kinda an antonym to consistent.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 7, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I Really did not say that.. I said that sentience is not relevant to me. Personhood is a different matter altogether, but fetuses are not people.
> ...



Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Objectively speaking, Neither option can apply to YOUR argument, ONLY, because in your case:
> ...


Sure! I agree that BOTH of us have true answers.. The answers that are not backed by law, or science, are subjective.. Sooooo.. My answer that is backed by case law, science etc, is TRUE, and based on FACT, and your answer (that a fetus is a person) is subjective, and based on opinion. 
Your stance is perfectly acceptable, as long as you do not try to portray it as fact based. True, sure- if it is true to you, it is true to you, and YOU are under no obligation to either have a late term abortion OR be tried and convicted for a late term miscarriage occurring under "suspicious circumstances". You have that CHOICE. Every choice a person makes in regards to their body is based on truth. This is autonomy, and I fully support your right to exercise it. Just don't try to impose YOUR subjective truth on ME, or any other person, without showing evidence that proves your case beyond a reasonable doubt. 





> Well for starters case law you don't really get to count. Just becuase something is a law or has precedent doesn't make it right. There was an awful lot of case law justifying slavery as well.


Since this is the law and justice system subforum, AND you wish to imprison women over abortions/ miscarriages/ and criminalize Tort cases of traffic accidents and other such things, I strongly suggest that you DECIDE whether the utilization of the justice system is what your ultimate goal is or is not. 
PS- Abortion being illegal was another judicial wrong that we had going for a couple of hundred years, but we have made major headway on that, and I don't see it going anywhere any time soon. The justice system, in terms of slavery, segregation, lynchings, and yes, abortion- has righted itself, from it's previous wrongdoings. =)



> Secondly I find it hilarious that you think the articles you posted are somehow evidence of when personhood begins. All of your articles dealt with the issue how lungs develop. YOU have not provided any science to back your position either which is that the first breath is when person hood begins. There studies were about how the biology works, the conditions that need to be in place for the lungs to function once out of the womb. What you would like to slide under the rug and hope you don't have to provide evidence for is the the decidedly UNscientific leap you would like us to make that the act of the first breathe is what makes someone a person.


My articles show far more conclusive evidence than anything you posted..  Whoops! I almost forgot... You didn't post JACK SHIT. That's right, because you said that you don't NEED evidence.. meaning that you dont CARE about evidence. All you care about are your FEELINGS. Wah wah wah. 





> First off I'm not really one to bastardize other people's work as you have. Again NOTHING you posted had anything to do scientifically with when personhood begins. It was about ling development. And you just hoped that we would accept your arbitrary definition defining that action as when personhood begins. To know if personhood begins at the point in time you state it does you first have to define personhoold which you really haven't done. Here are ALL of the defintions of person according to the dictionary.


Comparing a dictionary to scientific findings, especially when you have posted NOTHING of merit on your own, is ridiculous. I have ACTUAL proof on my side, and you have zilch. Suck on that!





> I think you can agree that at least two of those defintions can be attributed to an unborn child at some point. So the reality is really it isn't whether someone is a person or not that you're arguing. it's something else. What?


I am arguing personhood. You are not. You are arguing quickening, and this entire discussion has gotten to be totally.....


BORING! <yawn>






> Why isn't scientific evidence that shows you are wrong that the first breath equals person hood just as good evidence? Time to put your money where your mouth is. Do you have the proverbial balls to seek out that which does not support your postion?


Do YOU??? Mr. I-dont-need-evidence-my-feelings-count-wah-wah-wah?

You have posted NOTHING of evidence to your own position, remember?? Why should *I* have to do all of YOUR footwork? Besides, it would only lead to the conclusion that personhood begins at the first breath, anyways, as I have already SHOWN you, through PEER REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNALS. 




> Yeah I think I see what you mean. I understand legality doesn't change what she could choose to do. But that's true of deciding to kill anyone really.


It goes beyond legality.. It is about having control over one's own body. Now, I realize that you do not grasp this concept, but when a woman is pregnant, she does, in fact, still have a WHOLE LIFE of her own to enjoy as she sees fit. NOTHING can change that. The fetus cannot simply be removed at 20 weeks, as a means of avoiding the dangers that are present, in cases where the MOTHER might PUT HER OWN LIFE IN DANGER, or the dangers that are present because someone else puts the woman's life in danger, or the H1 N1 virus, or any number of other deadly infections that a PERSON can catch. A fetus can ONLY be harmed in the belly if the woman is harmed FIRST. Its called a CHRONOLOGY of events. The WOMAN gets hurt, or infected, THEN the fetus gets hurt or infected. Even if it was by a stray bullet, while she was at the firing range.. the fetus is SUBJECTED to that "risk", just the same as she is, only MORE SO. SHE can get skin grafts, surgeries, etc.. which is not simply uncommon in fetuses, but it is nearly unheard of. Fetuses are SUBJECT to autonomy. Autonomy is not about any "other" "person", than the WOMAN, for these very BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL reasons. At some point, you are going to have to admit that, and stop using all of this emotional rhetoric to try to make autonomy of a pregnant woman, in cases where the fetus is expelled early, either by choice or by accident, some kind of unbelievable issue. It is a FACT OF LIFE, it is VERY REAL and in order to stop feeling so much anger and hate over something so inconsequential (except for the emotional loss that some women experience), you have to EMBRACE it as such. 




> What America is or isn't really shouldn't have any bearing on whether we are free or not then. No law can prevent one from exercising autonomy. By extension then you would not have a right to life and happiness if you are not autonomous, correct?


We are autonomous, and everyone in the world is autonomous.. The difference is that unlike countries that have not declared themselves as having individual freedoms, like China, where a single person (imagine this is you) has the right to dictate how other people use their own bodies, including forcing women to have abortions in certain cases, and forcing both men and women to have sterilization surgeries. Family Planning and the American pro choice movement HAS the world's attention. We do not feel that anyone should be forced through ANY kind of medical situation against their will, period. We do not want anyone to be forced to gestate fully and deliver, forced to have a surgical C-Section, or any other surgery, OR forced to abort. We believe that each woman is in charge of making these decisions, but WE understand that imposing criminal charges on people for having different ideas than their government has, is OPPRESSIVE and TYRANNIC. Everyone HAS autonomy.. And as long as they are NOT being coerced through oppressive tyrannic governments, which threaten the the restrictive, less than fully supporting autonomy, nature of a prison cell, only then will they be free to make their choices as they see fit. Until then, ALL prevention of autonomy is oppression and dictative governing and, LIKE our forefathers, I will stand up and fight it tooth and nail. 



> I believe in a lot of the same things you do. Right up to the point where the choices  people make negatively effect another person's right to life and happiness. At which point you agreed the should be held criminally accountable not for the choice, but for what they did to another person. If that's true then it really is person hood you care about as far as the legality of abortion. Which it would seem would require you to hold woman legally accountable for depriving a person (again, if simply for arguments sake you accept that at some point a baby becomes a person before birth), of life and happiness., correct?


If it was a "person", which it is not, then I would be against the aborting of it. However, a non autonomous fetus, being inside of a REAL and FULLY autonomous woman, which I am sure I have fully explained now to you, at least a thousand times, then the non autonomous fetus is NOT a person. Anything human that is not a zygote, embryo, fetus, etc, (being clear so as you do not do that whole immature fucking play on words semantics game that you are SO famous for now) and has at least once breathed air, is a person, and should not necessarily be killed for someone else's convenience. It is absolutely illogical to argue that is is a person. 

Furthermore, to elaborate on my use of the word "necessarily" so that you do not go on another semantic trip, trying to mischaracterize my position here:
It is occassionally, actually OFTEN times, okay to take a life, innocent or otherwise, and even justifiably kill them, even after birth. People can not be on life support forever. People do kill people who may not be posing an imminent threat to their lives, as in my state, and in Colorado, where there is a "make my day" law, saying that anyone who is an unwelcome trespasser inside of your home can be shot to death. People who are not involved are allowed to kill someone if they are in the process of raping someone else, or have a knife on display in an apparently deadly manner.  This again goes hand in hand with someone protecting their property.. like a crab protects the insides of the shell that is its home, and a woman protects hers. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. If this was about saving lives, rather than oppressing women, then, considering your "anti abortion in the late term" arguments, you would not be "pro abortion" for the mother's life during the later part of the pregnancy. You would be emphatically arguing for a C-section, and pushing for state supported life support for both the delivered fetus and the mother..  Allowing abortions in certain cases during late term pregnancy, but wanting women criminalized in others, is SIMPLY NOT a consistent or fluid viewpoint, and as such is completely subjective and illogical.
> ...


In fucking consistent as hell. Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you can "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another. Tell me why it is inconsistent to not simply do a C-Section, rather than just going ahead and "killing" one "person".. And no more of the hyperbole that wah wah wah it is a DIFFICULT DECISION, MADE FOR ALL THE RIGHT REASONS, PURELY SUBJECTIVE BULLSHIT, when you say that, because it AUTOMATICALLY implies that WOMEN in a position to feel like abortion might have to be an option for them, are NOT making a difficult decision, or that they can't POSSIBLY HAVE THE REASONING SKILLS TO KNOW THAT IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. 

EPIC Fail. That is the ONE thing you are consistent about..


----------



## misterflew (Jan 7, 2010)

Hello to all;

Flew over the coo coo's nest recently, more of the same. Loons and mad hatter's abound. I think we should let a woman choose whether to have a flat somach or a rounded version. It's her choice. 

Peace and Icy 7-11 drinks for all 

Flewy


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you  can  "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another.



So you won't be defending yourself when I rape you and stab you 137  times?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1881026 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Read it a few times, and tell me why it is inconsistent that you  can  "kill" an "alive" "person" for one reason and not for another.
> ...



Comparing ME, an autonomous person, to a fetus, as if they are an autonomous person, is ridiculous.. 

Oh whoopsie! My memory must be slipping... As a general rule-

Don't Feed The....














TROLL...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 7, 2010)

Answer the question. Is a woman justified in killing someone who's trying to kill and raper her?


If so, then I want you to think really hard about hy it is inconsistent that you  can  "kill" an "alive"  "person" for one reason and not for another'.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 7, 2010)

Yes. But that person is an actual person, and autonomous. A fetus is no such thing.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source.



Sorry that just plain isn't true. Again NOTHING you posted has shit to do with personhood. 'I have more than you do' na na na boo bo0'. Grow the fuck up. The simple fact is if you went to the authors of those studies you posted and asked them if what they wrote meant personhood began with the first breath or had something to do with lung development you would be laughed out of the office.  You can't really complain about me not providing evidence when you haven't really posted ANYTHING that supports yours either.

The fact is it is your defintions of personhood that is totally arbitrary. Autonomy equals personhood now? You really want to argue that a a child's autonomy - it's ability to make choices - measurably changed because it took a breath? Having personhood be based on whether one is a autonomous or not probably isn't the greatest idea. After all one can lose their autonomy at various points throughtout life in many ways. I think you would be hard pressed to show even that a new born is autonomous for some time after its birth.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 7, 2010)

Tell me why it is inconsistent that you  can  "kill" an "alive" "person"  for one reason and not for another.You''re the one who said no such position can be illogical, but it necessarily emotional rhetoric.

You should look in a mirror.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 8, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Hence the need that YOU have, to prove that the fetus is a person, and not merely a fetus. No proof = nothing incompatible. Fetuses are NOT people, and caselaw, science, and everything else supports this. Eureka! This means that YOUR stance that a fetus is a person, is entirely subjective, and incompatible with EVERY source.
> ...



You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies. 
Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy. 


> The fact is it is your defintions of personhood that is totally arbitrary. Autonomy equals personhood now?



As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met. 



> You really want to argue that a a child's autonomy - it's ability to make choices - measurably changed because it took a breath?



Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people... 
Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST. 
Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please??? 

I never meant that "making choices" was the sole consideration in personhood, or autonomy, although taking a breath, or at least, being removed from a person's innards, is clearly the point in which personhood BEGINS. However, being separated from the uterus is not the sole consideration in personhood, or all miscarriages and stillbirths would be considered "people", having a birth certificate and everything. Clearly birth is not even considered to be enough to cause someone to have rights. Breathing at least ONE breath is, though. Legally, Scientifically, and Religiously. That is how it works, and whether you agree or not has absolutely NO bearing in regards to these facts. YOU having the emotion of a mountain and intellect of a peanut, does not make these facts any less true, Bern. 




> Having personhood be based on whether one is a autonomous or not probably isn't the greatest idea. After all one can lose their autonomy at various points throughtout life in many ways. I think you would be hard pressed to show even that a new born is autonomous for some time after its birth.



It IS autonomous. It can CHOOSE who and what it looks at.. it can suddenly scratch itself and other people (never ONCE seen a fetus with scratches on itself) which is why we put little mittens on newborns, and it can make noises and sounds, fart, smile, cry, etc. It can smell things, and cry because a place smells wrong, it can SEE things, and hear things, and be startled when it is surprised. It may be VIRTUALLY helpless in many ways, but unlike a fetus, if a newborn is starving, soiled, or alone and cold, it can cry and alert someone that it needs help, AND it can GET that help. It can be operated on, and it is very common for this to happen, it can be intubated for any long range life assistance aides, and guess what else? It can get SICK without being attached to and inside of the mother, or even in her arms. 

Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous. Even when a person is PVS and on life support, they are still considered a person, who simply needs someone to keep the oxygen coming to them. In these types of cases, someone ELSE gets to make choices that can continue them "living" and "growing", and if that type of support is too negligable, or as you say "inconvenient" to the family's finances, or the state's funding, and even it is perceived that the person might be capable of surviving, if that life support continued, then they can and OFTEN DO pull the cord. This is because there is not adequate resources for the hope of survival to be adequate to continue on the course of using life support. 

Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and refuse to get them, even for their little children???

NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 8, 2010)

misterflew said:


> Hello to all;
> 
> Flew over the coo coo's nest recently, more of the same. Loons and mad hatter's abound. I think we should let a woman choose whether to have a flat somach or a rounded version. It's her choice.
> 
> ...



Does anyone know why this featherhead felt the need to clutter up the board with this spew of nothing?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
> Also, now that I have posted several studies that have backed my claims, and clearly HAVE shown evidence for my stance- all you are going to do as some kind of evil hate spree tactic, is to just discredit them by saying that there was NO evidence within them proving that personhood starts at breathing. How convenient for you to do this.. Putting me on the defensive without lending a shred of credibility to your own subjective opinions. Real Classy.



Your position was that personhood starts with breathing. Where did ANY medical journal you posted broach the subject of personhood at all? 




JD_2B said:


> Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
> Hey newsflash, dickwad, I am not retarded. Your attempts to try and redirect my assertions into something else are THINLY VEILED AT BEST.
> Why don't you stop acting like such a TOOL, here, please???




Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: \-m&#275;\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural au·ton·o·mies
Date: circa 1623

1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence
3 : a self-governing state






JD_2B said:


> I never meant that "making choices" was the sole consideration in personhood, or autonomy, although taking a breath, or at least, being removed from a person's innards, is clearly the point in which personhood BEGINS.



Okay I'll meet you part way. I would agree there is a level subjectivity to my opinion on when personhood begins. I would concede that because I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation as to when personhood begins. I still believe what I believe as to when it occurs. The way I see it you can argue person hood in maybe three contexts. Science first. Science is observation, nothing more. Can you honestly observe when personhood begins? Would a scientist really say that when he saw that first breath he also saw the biological function that is becoming a person? I don't think so. Personhood isn't as simple as taking a breath no matter how much you would like it to be. 

Legally personhood doesn't occur until the child is born and takes a breath. But the law is the law. It isn't science. From a legal perspective, who has right and who doesn't really is quite arbitrary.

Religion is probably the hardest one because all one has to go on is what other people say god said.






JD_2B said:


> It IS autonomous. It can CHOOSE who and what it looks at.. it can suddenly scratch itself and other people (never ONCE seen a fetus with scratches on itself) which is why we put little mittens on newborns, and it can make noises and sounds, fart, smile, cry, etc. It can smell things, and cry because a place smells wrong, it can SEE things, and hear things, and be startled when it is surprised. It may be VIRTUALLY helpless in many ways, but unlike a fetus, if a newborn is starving, soiled, or alone and cold, it can cry and alert someone that it needs help, AND it can GET that help. It can be operated on, and it is very common for this to happen, it can be intubated for any long range life assistance aides, and guess what else? It can get SICK without being attached to and inside of the mother, or even in her arms.



Have you considered that you haven't seen those things in a fetus because you have probably observed a lot more newborns than fetuses? How is it you know that they are concsciously choosing to do those things? You are familiar with the concept of instincts aren't you? 





JD_2B said:


> Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous.



I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing. What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.






JD_2B said:


> NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.



Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal  right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.




Wait... when did this become a matter of a 'right to personhood'?! 




> Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and  refuse to get them, even for their little children???


Relevance?


> NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense


ppst! Doctors and caregivers  EMTs and paramedics, too 

Wanna know a secret? Parents are legally required tp provide the care and resiources to keep their children not only alive, but in a state of wellbeing!

Now I really worry for your child's welfare, if you think you have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to keep him/her alive.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884201 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal  right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.
> ...



"Personhood" is the new, invented standard of measurement people like JD came up with when it became painfully obvious that science just wasn't going to support the euphemisms they had been hiding behind.  Since it has no real meaning aside from how they "feel" about it, it can't be contradicted with those pesky hard facts.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884201 said:
			
		

> > Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and  refuse to get them, even for their little children???
> 
> 
> Relevance?
> ...



I can't believe you just figured out that JD thinks her children exist only as extensions of herself, to fit in with her convenience or be disposed of when they do not.  It's painfully obvious in every post she makes how much she resents the notion that she might have any obligation to anyone or anything other than fulfilling her own selfish, self-absorbed whims as it pleases her.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

I was trying to maintain my faith in human potential....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1885785 said:
			
		

> I was trying to maintain my faith in human potential....



Didn't I already describe this as pie-eyed optimism once?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You keep saying that, and YET.. I have, and you have not. It is easy for you to claim that my medical journal sources do not have any evidence for my position, just because you CHOOSE to not believe what they have to say, that is, the portions that you bothered to read, at all. And even THOSE you tried to discount, based on the type of mammal used in the studies.
> ...



There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Oh Great.. Now you are depleting autonomy down to your own little arbitrary definition by implying that only humans that can make their own decisions are what I call people...
> ...


Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age. 
Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY. 
I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity. 




> Okay I'll meet you part way. I would agree there is a level subjectivity to my opinion on when personhood begins. I would concede that because I'm not sure there is a scientific explanation as to when personhood begins. I still believe what I believe as to when it occurs.


Thank you.. 

Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion. 



> The way I see it you can argue person hood in maybe three contexts. Science first. Science is observation, nothing more. Can you honestly observe when personhood begins? Would a scientist really say that when he saw that first breath he also saw the biological function that is becoming a person? I don't think so. Personhood isn't as simple as taking a breath no matter how much you would like it to be.


That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true..  People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations). 
For every law of physics, there is (apparently, according to the scriptures, which, like it or not, were and continue to be the world's first 100% scientifically accurate text) yet another law of physics which is the complete opposite. I am going off track here, but I just read "Angels and Demons" last week, and i gotta tell ya, some of the concepts referring to particle physics were absolutely genius. I checked it out, and the book is not off the mark at all- its amazing! A must read!! I can't stop raving about it! You should pick up a copy. I think you would like it a lot! =) 



> Legally personhood doesn't occur until the child is born and takes a breath. But the law is the law. It isn't science. From a legal perspective, who has right and who doesn't really is quite arbitrary.


I disagree.. Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one. I do believe that anyone who is family and signs off, or is a medical professional, etc, and has a judge's order to do so, has the right to remove someone from life support, no matter what kind of life support it is, or what the prognosis looks like. OK- I agree that it can seem to be arbitrary (inconsistent with the right to die, etc) at times, though, but I have seen some cases in which the legal language did not make sense to me before I was a paralegal, and it turns out that it was just an issue of wrong jurisdiction, or the person filing their case in hopes of supporting the wrong argument.. And although some people thought that it was a judgment that was improperly made, I saw the reasoning and rationale behind them, and only wished that the person who filed had better legal representation. 



> Religion is probably the hardest one because all one has to go on is what other people say god said.


LOL I can relate to that also. It is certainly not a fax from heaven.

 I am an agnostic, but I do believe that many of the core values of the bible are excellent ways to live one's life, and I can see that the bible has yet to be disproven, and has *only* actually been proven as an accurate scientific reference. Even with arguments for evolution, the bible is consistent with it, because if everything came from water, well- the genesis account of creation shows that water came first. The six days of creation are just "God" days, so who knows how long an actual day was, even. It wasn't until God's (third? Fourth?) day of creation that there could be differentiation between day and night. I think that the Genesis account of creation is not at all literal.. 


> Have you considered that you haven't seen those things in a fetus because you have probably observed a lot more newborns than fetuses? How is it you know that they are concsciously choosing to do those things? You are familiar with the concept of instincts aren't you?


The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already said to be true. 

Oh and PS- If you want to use some weird claim that my personal opinions are based also on my personal observations of fetuses and infants, consider these three very excellent points:

1- I had a fetus in my body for over 9 months, for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I am sure that I have spent AS MUCH time observing a fetus's reactions and so called instincts (no he did not have instincts, LMAO!!!) if not MORE Time, than a person with a doctorate's degree in obstetrics, who also has spent two years in residency at an obstetrics research facility.  
Considering that my fetus was inside of my body for 24 hours X 7 days X  33 weeks (from week 8 to week 41), I have 5544 hours of experience. That actually equates to more than two full years for a full time researcher, and that is ONLY if they spent every second of every working hour (2080 a year, full time) observing fetuses, which I seriously doubt actually happens. 

and

2- You don't even have this kind of experience, so to claim that personal observation of a fetus is the sole way for either of us to have some opinion on personhood is illogical from the word Go. So, again, nice try. 

and 

3- It could just as easily be surmised by any layman that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) has "instincts", because it "knows where to go", but this, too, would be erroneous, because there are actually chemicals and hormones that draw it into the uterus, rather than the blastocyst having a mobilization mechanism, much less the ability to have instincts. Since we are not discussing blastocysts, though, it could just as easily be surmised that if a fetus is at a maturity point that you refer to as "viable", and it has "instincts", that it should, then, turn itself upside down, in birthing position, rather than remain breech. In other words, fetuses obviously do not have instincts..  =)



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Not all people have the full capacity to make their own decisions, but they are still considered people, and autonomous.
> ...


Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts. 
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me. 

[/quote]


JD_2B said:


> NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.



Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?[/quote]

Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards. 

Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?

Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884201 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > As we have covered, ad nauseum before, to have personhood as a legal  right, a GREAT DEAL of requirements must be met.
> ...



Since this is a constitutional discussion regarding the "person" having a "right to life" versus the right to abortion privacy.




> > Did you know that some religions are opposed to blood transfusions, and  refuse to get them, even for their little children???
> 
> 
> Relevance?


Parents are entitled to make medical decisions like these for their children, even if it means that the result will be death. Sad though it may be for most of us, even children have the right to die. 



> > NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense
> 
> 
> ppst! Doctors and caregivers  EMTs and paramedics, too
> ...



Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption. 



> Now I really worry for your child's welfare, if you think you have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to keep him/her alive.


Fuck off, you little twit. <yawn> Your flaming me about my son's personal well being (who will tell you he has an extremely comfortable life with me) has absolutely no bearing on this discussion..


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.  Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's.  In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally.  She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.

As for "the same actions outside of the womb, a fetus does much the same things as a newborn baby does, which is where your fallacious demand that a fetus must be like an adult to be a person breaks down, since a newborn baby doesn't meet your standard, either.



JD_2B said:


> Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
> I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.



Oh, you found a scientific study that purported to quantify and measure "personhood", did you?  Let's see it.  I would love to have this apocryphal "personhood" that you abortionists have tried to arbitrarily impose on everyone explained and nailed down once and for all.  Otherwise, I'm just going to have to stick with that boring, pedantic biology thing that so stubbornly refuses to give you the excuses you want.



JD_2B said:


> Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.
> 
> That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true..  People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).
> For every law of physics, there is (apparently, according to the scriptures, which, like it or not, were and continue to be the world's first 100% scientifically accurate text) yet another law of physics which is the complete opposite. I am going off track here, but I just read "Angels and Demons" last week, and i gotta tell ya, some of the concepts referring to particle physics were absolutely genius. I checked it out, and the book is not off the mark at all- its amazing! A must read!! I can't stop raving about it! You should pick up a copy. I think you would like it a lot! =)



You must be thrilled to think you finally managed to squirm around to this being all about "those mean Christians attacking you" instead of flailing around, making a damned fool of yourself on hard science.



JD_2B said:


> I disagree.. Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though, because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a really badly dysfunctional one. I do believe that anyone who is family and signs off, or is a medical professional, etc, and has a judge's order to do so, has the right to remove someone from life support, no matter what kind of life support it is, or what the prognosis looks like. OK- I agree that it can seem to be arbitrary (inconsistent with the right to die, etc) at times, though, but I have seen some cases in which the legal language did not make sense to me before I was a paralegal, and it turns out that it was just an issue of wrong jurisdiction, or the person filing their case in hopes of supporting the wrong argument.. And although some people thought that it was a judgment that was improperly made, I saw the reasoning and rationale behind them, and only wished that the person who filed had better legal representation.
> 
> LOL I can relate to that also. It is certainly not a fax from heaven.
> 
> ...



Oh, well, if we're counting THAT as expertise, I've carried THREE babies to term, and unlike you, managed to refrain from killing any of them for inconveniencing me.  So I guess by THAT standard, you STILL lose.



JD_2B said:


> and
> 
> 2- You don't even have this kind of experience, so to claim that personal observation of a fetus is the sole way for either of us to have some opinion on personhood is illogical from the word Go. So, again, nice try.



Same to you, since as I pointed out, I have you beaten on this one, too.



JD_2B said:


> and
> 
> 3- It could just as easily be surmised by any layman that a blastocyst (fertilized egg) has "instincts", because it "knows where to go", but this, too, would be erroneous, because there are actually chemicals and hormones that draw it into the uterus, rather than the blastocyst having a mobilization mechanism, much less the ability to have instincts. Since we are not discussing blastocysts, though, it could just as easily be surmised that if a fetus is at a maturity point that you refer to as "viable", and it has "instincts", that it should, then, turn itself upside down, in birthing position, rather than remain breech. In other words, fetuses obviously do not have instincts..  =)



I'm certainly glad I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel the way you do in an attempt to appear logical and scientific.  Lying certainly looks like hard work.



JD_2B said:


> I'm pretty sure it is you now that doesn't understand the term autonomy. Self-governance, that is what autonomy essentially is. The ability to consciously guide your own actions.I'm pretty sure someone in a coma isn't self governing.



According to whom, Noah Webster?  You?  I think everyone's seen how you make up definitions to suit yourself which bear no resemblance to the ACTUAL meaning.  Please show me where "conscious" enters into the definition of "autonomy".

Autonomy - 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing

Autonomous - 1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : self-contained <an autonomous school system>
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>
4 : controlled by the autonomic nervous system

Self-governing - having control or rule over oneself

I find that last definition concerning the autonomic nervous system to be particularly interesting, considering that the autonomic system, by definition, functions WITHOUT any conscious control by its owner.  That lack of conscious direction is, in fact, WHY it's called the "autonomic" system.  Hmmm.



JD_2B said:


> What I have noticed is that you tend to make words mean what you would like them to mean.



You mean when he perniciously insists on quoting the dictionary?

Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts. 
Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me. 

[/quote]


JD_2B said:


> NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.


[/QUOTE]

Not quite true.  I am legally responsible for the life, health, and well-being of my children.  That includes adoption, because I still have the legal responsibility to make sure that they are in the competent care of someone else before I can relinquish my own responsibility for them.  Otherwise, I am legally liable and will be punished.  I cannot simply deny my responsibilities.  I am legally required to discharge them, one way or another.

And "abortion is an alternative because abortion is an alternative" is circular reasoning at best.



JD_2B said:


> Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?



Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....

NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards. [/QUOTE]

Matter of opinion.  Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.



JD_2B said:


> Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?



Having skimmed this conversation, I can only assume that "without a single shred of evidence" in this case "a single shred of evidence I'm willing to accept".

As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.



JD_2B said:


> Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...



In terms of who's hearing you, you're not. In terms of who's actually buying your tripe, I hope with all my heart and soul that you are.  I'd hate to think there are MORE people that dumb and gullible.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.



Hellooooo in there. We have an entire governmental department DEVOTED to makeing sure that parents are responsible for their children. Ever hear of child neglect laws? Yes you indeed are legally required to do what is in the best interest of your child.




JD_2B said:


> There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try



MY POINT EXACLTEY. You went on a paragraph long rant about how ALL the evidence was on your side as to when you defined personhood (which is a made up term in the first place). Now you are admitting that science doesn't even mention the concept. So we are both in agreement now that science really can't be used as evidence for your defintion of personhood, right?  




JD_2B said:


> Exactly my point. Show me ONE fetus that is even AS self governing as the woman it is in, which would prove to ME that it is fully capable of the same actions outside of the womb, as it is during whatever week of gestation it is in, inside of the womb, no more, no less. I have already found a peer reviewed study which negates this notion, because the premature baby shows more activity and response than a fetus which would be at the exact same age of growth and maturity as the baby, if you counted the baby's gestation into the age.
> Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
> I agree that this is a subjective opinion in part, but it is totally erroneous to claim that my method of coming to that opinion was through anything but objectivity.
> 
> Also, I might just add in here, your opinion about personhood, is at any given time, between gestational weeks 13 and 40, which you cannot yourself pinpoint, and this is in spite of the fact that a preborn fetus has less response than a baby who is conceived on that exact date has. Just reiterating, so that you can SEE and understand what you believe, and so that you can also understand why I think that you are using emotion rather than logic to come to such a conclusion.



I understand what you are trying to get at with that particular study. But I think you are a little quick to conclude that has something to do with personhood. There are at least a couple other logical explanations. The premature baby for example; it should make sense that it responds more than the same baby still in the womb, not because it became more autonomous, but because it is being bombarded with more stimuli than it would be if it were still in the womb.

I argue your position on autonomy in general because again it isn't as simple as just taking a breath. There would have to be something that triggers in that instant a greater level of autonomy where once something that was once non self governing now is. I think what is observable is that autonomy is gradual. Sure a birthed child has more autonomy than it did in the womb. But a toddler has more autonomy than an infant. A 5 year old more so than a toddler and so on. Which makes saying that it is this threshold of autonomy at this point in time that counts as personhood, rather arbitrary.





JD_2B said:


> That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming alive, and a person- the very process which people find wonderous and amazing. Hence, the token phrase "the miracle of childbirth". See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some point get proven by science. This breathing issue is just one of those things. Maybe I am like Galileo, or Columbus, for believing in the Bible, and allowing it to guide me in the scientific path to find out if one more thing is true..  People used to call them crazy and illogical as well.. but those men are now considered Pioneers of science, and Legends amongst explorers. Popular belief does not make anything true.. Anything that is believed by the masses can easily be proven wrong by science or exploration (which amounts to scientifically accurate observations).



Did you or did you just not admit a few mere paragraphs ago that science would never say they observed personhood as being the point where a child took its first breath? How is it then that you can continue to state this as fact? A child isn't alive before it takes a breath? Add alive to the list of words you pull definition for out of your ass. 

And your take on religion is probably a bit off as well. After all if everything in the bible can be proven )i.e adam and eve were made out of whatever god made them out of) then we ought to be able to prove God him/her/it self. This is entirely my opinion by I think a creator would think that would defeat the purpose of having people believe in him. You can not 'know' that the bible, Jesus, God, etc. are true and also have faith that they are true. Faith in something is a belief in the absence of evidence. I don't think God wants us to 'know' he exists or that there's life after death. I think he wants us to have faith in those things.






JD_2B said:


> Nope, it is self governance that is autonomy. A person who is, for all intensive purposes, dead, incapable of feeding themselves, or drinking water, etc, and hooked up to machines to simply put off the inevitable "D" word, and has not made up a living will or anything of the sort, then it is pretty silly to consider them alive or having any entitlement to continue being hooked up to those machines. The same applies to fetuses. If the "machine" stops working (the woman's body/ uterus/ etc) then a fetus person (if such a thing exists, which I believe is only in your mind) should make like a tree and LEAVE. As you can see, the fetus is incapable of this,even considering this as an option, and so, it will not do it. Just because technology and/or a biological support system EXISTS does not mean that anyone is entitled to it's being used, do you understand? A person in a coma CAN self govern, at least as far as our laws lend credence. He can have a living will that says "keep me on life support until I wake up or die naturally.. Use the trust fund money to pay for this, if needed.". THAT is self governance. Some people do not DO this. I personally think that if a person is in a coma, and is rescued by life support, then whether they do or do not have a will to testify their wishes, if they cannot pay by their own personal means or their family's means, then they should not be taking up space in a hospital bed for longer than two or three weeks on the taxpayer's dime.. THAT is when a person loses autonomy, when they need to RELY on someone else's biological support system or technical life support resources to remain clinically alive. And don't flip that one on me, too, you fucking semantics whore. I do not mean that nobody should get food stamps, welfare, section 8, or medicaid services, like oxygen tanks, etc. The point was that they could still get those things through other means, they have the capacity of mind to choose whether the path to get those things will be easy or extremely hard, and are totally autonomous in their decision to use federal funding that we Americans provide out of the kindness of our hearts.
> Without that funding, they would surely lose autonomy far more quickly than with, and we do, overall, like using medical advances, as long as we can still laugh and giggle sometimes, as a result. So don't fucking switcharoo my words again, just because you feel like playing "Look at me! I'm a Semantics Whore" again!!! That really irritates the shit out of me.



There isn't any semantics in the contradiction you just made. You said a person in a coma is autonomous because he can write a will telling people what he wants if he should wind up in a coma. Mere sentences later you said the same person is not autonomous because, having a will or not, they are dependent on others to carry out those wishes. You're talking dependence again. Even a newborn is dependent on an awful of outside help to keep it alive. Yet you don't recognize that the argument you made justifying abortion could very well certainly justify killing a child well after it is born. FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK at the argument  you made. No is responsible for keeping anyone alive. YOUR WORDS.

You are floundering JD. You are desperately trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions. That one should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants and that killing an innocent person should remain a legal offense. In your mad scramble to do this you define words outside of their accepted meaning to try and reconcile those two beliefs. Person, alive, human, human being, consciousness, autonomy, and the grand daddy of made up concepts person_hood_ Science doesn't define that. Even the law doesn't define that. Stating the child has legal rights at x point in time is not the same as saying we recognize a measurable change in consciousness, autonomy or whatever word you want to try and use. That leaves you with the religious qualifiers for your made up definition of personhood. And the irony is that you cling to that for your justification for abortion but completely ignore what God would want prior to that point.




JD_2B said:


> NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.



The point/question is when does not having a responsibility to keep someone alive cross the line to killing an innocent person.






JD_2B said:


> Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....
> 
> NOBODY is. Call me a fucking idiot all you want, but this is EMPIRICALLY TRUE. Nobody who is hooked up to wires, or is encased with a biological system, for life support, is entitled to that system. You cannot deny this or anything else I give you clear and long winded examples towards.



Then why is it not empircally true that you can kill someone for whatever reason you choose? Why does the law require gaurdians not neglect minors?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.



:sigh:

fetal brain development sentience - Google Scholar

Neuromaturation of the Human Fetus -- Flower 10 (3): 237 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal... : Pediatric Research

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf

MD Consult -- Start Session Cookie Error

ScienceDirect - Neuropsychologia : Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, William P. Fifer, Norman A. Krasnegor and William P. Smotherman. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.

http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/downloads/education-packs/KS4FetalSentience.pdf

When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?; Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - 1(3)ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare

You were talking earlier about  medical journals?


> Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the  study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early  shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.



You're a fucking moron with no medical education. Even a rudimentary understanding of neuroplasticity makes clear that exposure to the environment outside the womb and the associated audiovusal and tactile stimuli are going to have a major impact on the formation of neural associations and the form and operations of the brain.





> That is YOUR opinion, and erroneous for a multitude of reasons, the  first being that taking a breath IS the witnessing of a fetus becoming  alive



:motherfuckinggfacepalm:

By definition, the life of a human organism begins when egg and sperm merge to form a new entity. 

What were you saying about biology before? Clearly you've never studied the subject at so much as a fifth grade level.



> See, nothing about religion exists in the bible, which does not at some  point get proven by science



How fucking retarded are you?

Grass before the sun? Get real.


> Doctors and nurses often disconnect infants and old people, and  invalids, etc, from life support, and they have no authorization to do  this, which is entirely illegal. They usually get away with it, though,  because the person has little hope of living, and either no family, or a  really badly dysfunctional one.



You have proof of systemic illegal killing of patients in American hospitals?


> The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already  said to be true.



Only if you're too stupid to read them and dishonest enough to claim they say something they don't.


> Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....



I already did, you illiterate ****. I gave a number of examples. It's not our fault you can't read.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1) The Constitution was never brought up, you twit

2) You jumped from 'right to life' to 'personhood' to 'autonomy' to 'I don't care if it's sentient, I just wantto kill it' to '_right to_ personhood' and back to square one.

Can you even keep up with your own story?


Parents are entitled to make medical decisions like these for their children, even if it means that the result will be death. Sad though it may be for most of us, even children have the right to die. 



> ppst! Doctors and caregivers  EMTs and paramedics, too
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886837 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.
> ...



I'd give you rep if I could.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.



Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease. 




> Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's.  In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally.  She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.



Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream, then there is no way that you can make the inference that her actions and day to day activities, even, do not affect the fetus as well. If she so much as lays on her back a certain way, her major arteries can experience just enough blockage to slow the fetus' oxygen delivery from HER body, as a result of HER decision to rest herself in a comfortable way, that the fetus can, and sometimes does, cease to continue growing. 
By the way, to be consistent in your own beliefs, applying the logic that the metabolism or a hiccup is some form of autonomy and self governance, then you must also apply this logic to that of the also metabolizing embryo, and early fetus. 
Having reflexes is not autonomy, in any event. 

And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range, then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this space as well? How do you even BEGIN to figure on that one? LOL!! 



> As for "the same actions outside of the womb, a fetus does much the same things as a newborn baby does, which is where your fallacious demand that a fetus must be like an adult to be a person breaks down, since a newborn baby doesn't meet your standard, either.



I never said like an adult. I said that a newborn premature baby will have MORE response than its counterpart fetus, even if both were conceived on the exact same day. Stop playing semantics soldier with me, and twisting my words around to have a new meaning. I swear you people just LOOOOVE those pathetic strawman arguments. =)




> Oh, you found a scientific study that purported to quantify and measure "personhood", did you?  Let's see it.  I would love to have this apocryphal "personhood" that you abortionists have tried to arbitrarily impose on everyone explained and nailed down once and for all.  Otherwise, I'm just going to have to stick with that boring, pedantic biology thing that so stubbornly refuses to give you the excuses you want.



No you fucking dimbulb, I specifically said that there is NO study that measures actual personhood, because personhood is, as of yet, a subjective belief system. The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well. 

PS I already showed you the studies. It is not MY ignorance that is preventing you from reading it. 




> You must be thrilled to think you finally managed to squirm around to this being all about "those mean Christians attacking you" instead of flailing around, making a damned fool of yourself on hard science.





When has anyone said anything derogatory about Christians???? LMAO!!!





> Oh, well, if we're counting THAT as expertise, I've carried THREE babies to term, and unlike you, managed to refrain from killing any of them for inconveniencing me.  So I guess by THAT standard, you STILL lose.



Glad none of your pregnancies came at a bad time for you. Also glad I am not strapped down by three kids..  

PS- I did SAY that observation of a pregnancy from a personal perspective made both of us none the wiser.. LOVE the way you, as per the usual, blissfully ignored that.. 



> Same to you, since as I pointed out, I have you beaten on this one, too.



  From the lack of a true to life avatar of the bags that are surely under your eyes, and the migraine medicine next to your keyboard, I wonder..   Tee hee!!





> I'm certainly glad I don't have to twist myself into a pretzel the way you do in an attempt to appear logical and scientific.  Lying certainly looks like hard work.


I love your flaming.. It is certainly not up to par with anything anyone would consider logic, but hey, if it makes you feel better about your life...




> According to whom, Noah Webster?  You?  I think everyone's seen how you make up definitions to suit yourself which bear no resemblance to the ACTUAL meaning.  Please show me where "conscious" enters into the definition of "autonomy".
> 
> Autonomy - 1 : the quality or state of being self-governing
> 
> ...



And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system. 



> I find that last definition concerning the autonomic nervous system to be particularly interesting, considering that the autonomic system, by definition, functions WITHOUT any conscious control by its owner.  That lack of conscious direction is, in fact, WHY it's called the "autonomic" system.  Hmmm.



No shit. You can talk to HIM about that, though. I never once claimed that INVOLUNTARY movements were somehow a form of autonomy. Again, ignorance is bliss.. 





> You mean when he perniciously insists on quoting the dictionary?



The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked. 

:yawn:





> > Not quite true.  I am legally responsible for the life, health, and well-being of my children.  That includes adoption, because I still have the legal responsibility to make sure that they are in the competent care of someone else before I can relinquish my own responsibility for them.  Otherwise, I am legally liable and will be punished.  I cannot simply deny my responsibilities.  I am legally required to discharge them, one way or another.
> 
> 
> 
> And "abortion is an alternative because abortion is an alternative" is circular reasoning at best.



Boo.. Is that ALL you've GOT, REALLY????? 

Can't fight straightforward logic, my dear! Besides, nobody SAID that. You are not even sounding REASONABLE here. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Ya know another thing that smart objective people udnerstand is that using absolutes like, never, ever, no one, anyone is rarely a good idea. You do have a responsibility to not kill persons, right?
> ...



Matter of opinion.  Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.[/QUOTE]

And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof. 


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Speaking of which, Why have you done NOTHING here but to constantly claim that my shit is untrue, without giving even a single shred of evidence or example for your own? Also, why do you constantly ignore half of what I say, 100% of the time?
> ...



Noperss.. That's what you get for skimming. He posted ZILCH. Nothing. Not even ONE article to even begin debating. 
Why am I defending myself against such a flaming little ignorant troll anyways???  



> As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.



OK 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Someone said via PM that it seems that I am talking to myself. With all of my heart and soul, I hope that this is not true...
> ...



Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886849 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1884201 said:
> ...



Uhhh yes it was.. Right to life.. Criminalization of women, right to privacy.. Ringin any bells???



> 2) You jumped from 'right to life' to 'personhood' to 'autonomy' to 'I don't care if it's sentient, I just wantto kill it' to '_right to_ personhood' and back to square one.
> 
> Can you even keep up with your own story?



I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my stance on abortion, you fucking emo. Sorry if it has put you into some kind of rage that I shared it. It doesn't make me want to stop sharing, though. 





> > ppst! Doctors and caregivers  EMTs and paramedics, too
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Wrong-o... If the woman got severely sick, hurt or died, that fetus would not be independent "in the sense" that it IS not an independent entity, and the pregnancy would cease.


When Gaia gets sick and Earth's ecosystem (health) is effected, the woman's not so autonomous, is she?


> Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream,



Are you fucking retarded? Cecile already linked to an explanation of fetal blood supply. If the mother's blood ran into the fetus, then no child could ever have a different bloodtype than the mother or they'd both die. Bloodtypes could only differ between races and mixing of races would be nearly impossible. I have a different bloodtype than my mother. Specifically, I could receiver her blood but she could not receive mine or she'd die ( I think I have the same blood type as my father).

FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION


> Throughout the fetal stage of development, the maternal blood supplies the fetus with O2 and nutrients and carries away its wastes.
> 
> These substances diffuse between the maternal and fetal blood through the *placental membrane*.
> They are carried to and from the fetal body by the umbilical blood vessels.



FETAL BLOOD AND CIRCULATION




> The placenta is responsible for working as a trading post between              the mother's and the baby's blood supply. Small blood  vessels carrying              the fetal blood run through the placenta, which is full of  maternal              blood. Nutrients and oxygen from the mother's blood are  transferred              to the fetal blood, while waste products are transferred  from the              fetal blood to the maternal blood, without the two blood  supplies              mixing.



The Fetal Life-Support System: Placenta, Umbilical Cord, & Amniotic Sac : American Pregnancy Association

How fucking retarded are you? How many times must we explain things to you before you learn?



> And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range,  then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this  space as well?



There is a city within my city and there are many nations wholly surrounded by another nations. Of course, stupid questions are your hallmark.


> he judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific,  medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the  religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.




Find a single respected peer-reviewed study that says the processes of life begin with the first breath of a living organism.


> And still, a fetus is none of the above



Ask any medical doctor whether the autonomic nervous system comes into being magically with the first breath.

PS: You need to look up the definition of forensic.

S: (n) *forensics* (scientific tests or techniques  used in the investigation of crimes) 


Retard


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

> I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my  stance on abortion,



Yes, you have illiteracy and ignorance behind you


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886837 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try.
> ...



A google search, not a link, and none of them show any signs of the word personhood. Dipshit. 

http://jmp.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/10/3/237


> Neuromaturation of the Human Fetus -- Flower 10 (3): 237 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy



Control + F + "Person" = "Phrase not found"


> Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy



"While agreement on personhood is elusive, this concept has unquestioned moral relevance. A stipulated usage of the term, the psychic sense of person, applies to early human prenatal life and encompasses morally relevant aspects of personhood. *A person in the psychic sense has (1) a minimal psychology, defined as the capacity to retain experiences, which may be nonconscious,* through physiological analogs of memory; and (2)* the potential to become a person in the full sense.* "

Dipwad-  "psychic" sense of person?? Nonconscious (and inconclusive again) and "potential" to become a person in the FULL sense?? Are you smoking that rock again tonight??

http://journals.lww.com/pedresearch...nce_of_Human_Consciousness__From_Fetal.1.aspx


> The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal... : Pediatric Research



Oh for christ's sake- even this study backs me up, too!!  

http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf


> http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsaae/zasshi/WC6_PC/paper79.pdf



YOU LOVE ME DON'T YOU?? You didnt even read the ABSTRACT!!!  LMFAO!!!

Go ahead.. READ IT. YOU POSTED IT, YOU FUCKING NEANDERTHAL. 

"The extent to which the fetus may be able to experience sensations, including pain, in utero has apparently
been greatly overestimated. *The misconception that the prematurely born human infant is a good surrogate
for the human fetus of the same post-conception age has led to the notion that awareness, pain experience and
the potential to suffer, which are observable in premature human infants born at 30 weeks or earlier, should
therefore occur in equivalent human fetuses. However, e**xtensive studies of lambs in utero have demonstrated
that the physiological environment of the fetal brain, and its responsiveness to stimuli, are markedly
different from those of the newborn lamb, whether born prematurely or not.* The fetus apparently remains
in continuous states of sleep-like unconsciousness, which are maintained by a range of neuroinhibitory
physiological mechanisms that are unique to fetal life. *Moreover, the fetus is not apparently arousable to
states of 'awareness' by potentially noxious humoral, auditory or surgical stimuli. These observations question
the need to use pain-relieving medication in fetuses during experimental surgery."*

http://www.mdconsult.com/das/articl...=16703880&sid=0/N/562339/1.html?issn=02770326


> MD Consult -- Start Session Cookie Error



Start session cookie error...  But no doubt, another one that supports my claims as being medically and scientifically accurate. =) Because you are in looooove with meeeee..  

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=aa39565736d2d70bac722294042fae9e


> ScienceDirect - Neuropsychologia : Fetal Development: A Psychobiological Perspective. Edited by Jean-Pierre Lecanuet, William P. Fifer, Norman A. Krasnegor and William P. Smotherman. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1995.



Pay per article.. Post the pdf, if you actually read this, so that I can brag some more about your crush on me, and thank you repetitively for posting more proof for supporting the pro choice movement. =)


> http://www.righttolifetrust.org.uk/downloads/education-packs/KS4FetalSentience.pdf



Publications made by right to life groups are not medical journals.. they are nothing more than propaganda, my little crusher.. ;-)

It also seems to know a lot more about fetal pain than anyone else in the world, based on the answer they put in there, to give some air of quality to their unsubstantiated claims, that based solely on the structures being THERE, that the 10 week gestated fetus, having these structures in place,  experiences pain, even if it does not react, as this right to life group claims that the neurological system can experience and understand pain even if the fetus does not respond to pain stimuli. What a crock of shit. I have posted a peer reviewed medical article that negates this anyways, not to mention the definitive truths from the medical articles above, that YOU posted. Google some more, lovebird. =)


> When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?; Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine - 1(3)ages 153-165 - Informa Healthcare



You posted this before, and I debunked it. By the way- your own (more recent) article above, which I cut and pasted a bit from, negates this study. 



> You were talking earlier about  medical journals?



Thanks!! <catches pro's kisses, chucks them in the garbage can> 



> > Thus, my position is that fetuses are NEVER people, because, as the  study proved, (unintentionally, it seems) a baby born 5 weeks early  shows MORE response than a fetus that was conceived on the same DAY.
> 
> 
> You're a fucking moron with no medical education. Even a rudimentary understanding of neuroplasticity makes clear that exposure to the environment outside the womb and the associated audiovusal and tactile stimuli are going to have a major impact on the formation of neural associations and the form and operations of the brain.
> ...



Fancy way to say "are going to have a major impact on... sentience" 

<kissy kissy>



> By definition, the life of a human organism begins when egg and sperm merge to form a new entity.
> 
> What were you saying about biology before? Clearly you've never studied the subject at so much as a fifth grade level.
> 
> ...



Water before grass.. sun came before water. PS why do you send me so many kissy kissy lovey dovey articles that only degrade your own prior claims, and support mine, and then talk down to _me_ like that?? Ahhh but that was a short lived crush..   ;-)




> You have proof of systemic illegal killing of patients in American hospitals?



Systemic?? As in, there being some systematic way of medical professionals going about doing it, or Systemic as in happening within the medical system? 

A- No
B- Yes

Ask any neonatal nurse. =)




> > The studies, the peer reviewed ones, show much of what I have already  said to be true.
> 
> 
> Only if you're too stupid to read them and dishonest enough to claim they say something they don't.



My darling ex crusher, I do believe that it is only YOU who is not reading them.   




> > Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....
> 
> 
> I already did, you illiterate ****. I gave a number of examples. It's not our fault you can't read.



Sociological expectations are not the same thing as a physical requirement or a legal one for that matter. Like I said- People do adopt. If all parents were criminalized for not caring for their kids 24/7, then most parents would be in jail, for leaving their kids with a caregiver. It TAKES A VILLAGE. 

What happens to orphans, or children whose parents have gone to jail?? What happens to foster kids? 

A sociological expectation towards a person is DIFFERENT from having a physical requirement or actual NEED from that person.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.



Autonomy does not distinguish between biological dependence, nurturing dependence or any other type of dependence. If one can not self govern, one is dependent on SOMETHING. The point that is trying to be made here is that your justification for abortion due to autonomy or lack of it can't work either because it would also force you to support killing after birth as well. Newborn's are not autonomous. They can not self govern. There is little to no difference in their level of dependence on the outside world before birth or for a good time after. You said quite clearly so you can't argue someone is putting words in your mouth, that no one is responsible for keeping anyone from dieing. If that is the case then you MUST support no legal action be taken if a legal gaurdian neglects there born child. Because the fact is an infant is dependent on someone. If it's needs are not met, it will die.   





JD_2B said:


> The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.



So the book we all look to to find out what words mean got it wrong? Man I thought you'd at least deny making up definitions of stuff, but you're actually making excuses for it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

I get the distinct impression I confused her when I said 'neuroplasticity'
.

Too many syllables. Also, I think the letters MD after Mr.McCullagh's name might have thrown her off as well.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

I'm still waiting for her promised scientifoc papers about how she can have puppies with fido and life begins when a living organism takwes its first breath and the autonomic nervous system magically springs into existence. Oh, that's right- the bible says so


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1886837 said:
			
		

> Personhood and Human Embryos and Fetuses -- Tauer 10 (3): 253 -- Journal of Medicine and Philosophy
> 
> .





JD_2B said:


> Control + F + "Person" = "Phrase not found"


Learn to Read with phonics


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

> Invariably, when philosophers wish to challenge the notion that human
> beings in the womb have a right to life or need to be protected from
> harm, they invoke a distinction between &#8220;human&#8221; and &#8220;person&#8221;: the
> embryo or fetus might be a &#8220;human being,&#8221; but the being&#8217;s humanity is
> ...


http://www.uffl.org/vol13/peach03.pdf

Just happened across this. Looks like a good read


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

&#8220;The truth cannot force its way in when
something else is occupying its space.&#8221;

-Ludwig Wittgenstein

I couldn't describe JD better


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 9, 2010)

I want JD to go and answer this question and tell me whether a theoretical extraterrestrial or non-physical intelligence would be justified in killing her because she is not a person because she cannot survive underwater or in any other environment than that for which her physiology is suited.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 9, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Nope.. That is a sociological expectation, not an obligation, and not a legal requirement. Parents can legally give up their parental rights through adoption.
> ...



And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...

So, again, no dice for you. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > There is not a study in existence that even discusses personhood or when it begins. Nice Try
> ...



As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution towards some right to life for a person, then the matter of defining personhood must be explored. We both agree that science is one of the best means of finding the correct answers to this. If you look at my post to proletarian, you will see that there ARE answers.. You just have to open your eyes to them. 


> I understand what you are trying to get at with that particular study. But I think you are a little quick to conclude that has something to do with personhood. There are at least a couple other logical explanations. The premature baby for example; it should make sense that it responds more than the same baby still in the womb, not because it became more autonomous, but because it is being bombarded with more stimuli than it would be if it were still in the womb.



Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb, and also, because an infant does not have the chemicals being poured into it which apparently also keeps a fetus in a state of being asleep or non conscious, non responsive to pain stimuli.. So, yep, it seems to be a signal of personhood to me. 



> I argue your position on autonomy in general because again it isn't as simple as just taking a breath. There would have to be something that triggers in that instant a greater level of autonomy where once something that was once non self governing now is. I think what is observable is that autonomy is gradual. Sure a birthed child has more autonomy than it did in the womb. But a toddler has more autonomy than an infant. A 5 year old more so than a toddler and so on. Which makes saying that it is this threshold of autonomy at this point in time that counts as personhood, rather arbitrary.



I really think that claiming that it can (potential) does not in any way equate to anything being actual. Also, a 5 year old can be less autonomous than a 2 year old. There are many 5 year olds that cannot say their alphabet, read, etc, when at the same time, there are little tiny infants that can actually read and understand the meaning of written words. 

Stimuli means nothing in the uterus, because the fucking thing is asleep and not conscious or responsive even of pain stimuli, so I truly do not see the point to this argument. 




> Did you or did you just not admit a few mere paragraphs ago that science would never say they observed personhood as being the point where a child took its first breath? How is it then that you can continue to state this as fact? A child isn't alive before it takes a breath? Add alive to the list of words you pull definition for out of your ass.




If you want to argue for rights, you have to argue for personhood. And I have to argue against it. That is just how these things go.. 



> And your take on religion is probably a bit off as well. After all if everything in the bible can be proven )i.e adam and eve were made out of whatever god made them out of) then we ought to be able to prove God him/her/it self. This is entirely my opinion by I think a creator would think that would defeat the purpose of having people believe in him. You can not 'know' that the bible, Jesus, God, etc. are true and also have faith that they are true. Faith in something is a belief in the absence of evidence. I don't think God wants us to 'know' he exists or that there's life after death. I think he wants us to have faith in those things.



My beliefs are only manifested in the presence of evidence.. I do understand what you mean about blind faith, but I think that you have some of this towards fetuses being sentient etc, yourself. 

I do not believe in life after death. The brain just releases some chemicals when someone dies clinically, and those chemicals cause them to see a wide array of visions. 
Apparently the chemicals have some sort of energy to them, even after the time of death is recorded.. Also, this is important, too- just because someone has the presence of mind available at some given time to manifest a memory, or have some type of brain activity- it does not make them alive. This should be clear, by the chemical releases recorded in those types of "near death experiences", and "out of body experiences", which are truly nothing more than brain activity being disrupted from a normal thought process by magnetics. 

Here is a very good explanation of this.. Skim through it, if you would, and then read the last few paragraphs verbatim, please. 

Medical Support for NDE



> There isn't any semantics in the contradiction you just made. You said a person in a coma is autonomous because he can write a will telling people what he wants if he should wind up in a coma. Mere sentences later you said the same person is not autonomous because, having a will or not, they are dependent on others to carry out those wishes. You're talking dependence again. Even a newborn is dependent on an awful of outside help to keep it alive. Yet you don't recognize that the argument you made justifying abortion could very well certainly justify killing a child well after it is born. FOR GOD'S SAKE LOOK at the argument  you made. No is responsible for keeping anyone alive. YOUR WORDS.



A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive.  Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to. 
Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different. 

If the coma patient or the 10 month old child is left to their own devices, which is all that happens with pulling the plug on a coma patient, by the way- then the coma patient will either die of natural causes, or have people, under sociological expectations, "work" on him until the power is restored (say it was a power outage or something.. ). With an infant, again, it can be left to its own devices, but I agree- this is neglectful- so instead of doing that, the vast majority of people leave the infant with people who are obligated socially to find parents that are more willing to love it and nurture it. 

No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained. 




> You are floundering JD. You are desperately trying to reconcile two irreconcilable positions. That one should be able to have an abortion whenever she wants and that killing an innocent person should remain a legal offense. In your mad scramble to do this you define words outside of their accepted meaning to try and reconcile those two beliefs. Person, alive, human, human being, consciousness, autonomy, and the grand daddy of made up concepts person_hood_ Science doesn't define that. Even the law doesn't define that. Stating the child has legal rights at x point in time is not the same as saying we recognize a measurable change in consciousness, autonomy or whatever word you want to try and use. That leaves you with the religious qualifiers for your made up definition of personhood. And the irony is that you cling to that for your justification for abortion but completely ignore what God would want prior to that point.



Oh tough shit. You can't even accept that a person can be fucking ADOPTED, without turning it into a game of semantical fucking GARBAGE, claiming that parenthood is some kind of physiological fucking dependence issue. You ARE a fucking pea brained idiot, after all. Gratz... 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > NOBODY is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive, in a legal sense. There is always a healthy and acceptable alternative.. Any child can be adopted.. any fetus aborted. That is how it is, and even if you disagree, that is still how it will remain.
> ...



When YOU define personhood to include fetuses, rather than just babies, or define fetuses that should not be killed as innocent persons who can still be killed as long as they are saving mommy's life in the fucking process, you fucking hypocrite...... Laaaather rinnnnnnse and fuuuuuuuuuucking repeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeat. Goddamnit you are so annoying. Stop fucking REPEATING THE SAME GODDAMNED QUESTIONS!!!!

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left? 

Repeat..

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left? 

Repeat..

Pete and Repeat went for a boat Ride.. Pete fell in, so who was Left? 

Repeat..

Fucking Reeeeeeeeeeetarded Reeeeeeeeeepeater.. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Give me ONE example of a person who is bound to keep someone alive....
> ...



The same CHOICES AND REASONS that it IS empirically true that YOU can kill a fetus to save mommy's life, and you goddamned know it. That is a REASON.. An EXCEPTION that YOU deem worthy. YOU chose it. She (any pregnant woman) can choose her reason too. 

And you know GODDAMNED FUCKING WELL THAT I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT NEGLECTING CHILDREN. The LAW ALLOWS FOR PEOPLE TO GIVE UP THEIR PARENTAL RIGHTS, BY FUCKING CHOICE. Stop IGNORING this shit as if it is just some kind of fucking FAIRY TALE, you fucking IDIOT. 

Here it is.. Idiot of the year award.. 



Nite!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...



That is not what you argued. You wanna talk about annoying and cowardly, that would be watching you trying to make excuses and pretend you didn't say exactly what you said. You are the one playing semantics. Under YOUR argument, no one has the responsibility to keep anyone alive. NO responsibility means NO responsibility. IF that's true why go through the aggravation of the adoption process. Why not just lock it in a room till it stops making any sound. You can't twist it. You can't accuse me of semantics. That is what you're arguing your right is. In that case the law indeed does disagree with you




JD_2B said:


> A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive.  Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
> Those are two very different concepts of dependence. Sociological and physiological needs are completely different.



You are the one playing semantics again dear. You are the one that can't directly respond to the reality of your argument. Dependence is dependence. You continue to only look at things through your own selfish perspective. It doesn't matter if it acknowledges it or feels it or asks for it or who does it. From the time it is conceived to well after it is born, if not cared for, the child will die. Stop dancing around this inconvenient truth. You can say what you want about who is responsible for what, warped as that opinion is, you certainly can not claim that anyone else in society is somehow more socially obligated to your child than you are. Why put your child up for foster care or adoption, as YOU stated, they have no responsibility to the infant either.



JD_2B said:


> No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.



Then how is it you can go to jail for child neglect?

For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with. 

You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Sorry, JD, but you failed again.

So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.


> As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution  towards some right to life for a person



Which you suddenly decided three posts ago? Why do you change your claims so oft,unless they keep getting proven false- like you claim about fetal blood supply that Cecile and later I proved false?


> Bombarded with stimuli that it could NEVER GET in the womb



You don't get exposed to the stimuli in America you would in a specific coffee shop in Paris. You're not making any point.

Interesting how you reject every concept of personhood yet never define it yourself. Not surprising,though, since you've said repeatedly that personhood is not important to you, since you want to kill the child anyway.


> There are many 5 year olds that cannot say their alphabet, read, etc,  when at the same time, there are little tiny infants that can actually  read and understand the meaning of written words.




And some, like you, never master reading comprehension. What's your point?





> If you want to argue for rights, you have to argue for personhood. And I  have to argue against it. That is just how these things go..



False. You've yet to define 'personhood' or establish that it is a necessary condition for rights. You've also yet to show how your undefined term ('personhood') is established by the moving of the diaphragm when an organism is in an atmospheric environment.


> My beliefs are only manifested in the presence of evidence..



The bible is not evidence.


> I do not believe in life after death.



You have to. You already said that whatever the bible says is true. (I wonder what it says about a woman's place.)



> No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive






You might want to open your biology book to the chapter on pregnancy, since you obviously don't know what it is (not surprising since you get your science ed from the bible).


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Don't blame her, Bern.

Anything the bible says is true, including the life of a living thing beginning with the first breath it takes (ignore the whole issue of a living thing being alive by definition and humans only taking a breath when alive).

She's retarded and the thinks the bible is a science textbook.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > And legally, I CAN, without the help of DCF. I can go to a private adoption agency, if I was ever in a position where I could not care for my child. I could go to a "safe place", too, and abandon a baby there, if I choose. LEGALLY. DCF is not always involved in these cases, where the parents are concerned. Again, it takes a person willing to take responsibility, to fulfill their responsibility, and it takes an equally brave person to give up the rights to ever having that responsibility again. LEGALLY...
> ...



You fucking assmunch- I did not FUCKING say it that way. I said it and explained far differently, in the context of physical dependence, and you KNOW DAMN WELL what that ultimately means. YOU simply cannot wrap your tiny little pea brain around it, and come to accept it, because it is TRUTH and you HATE truth. You refuse to even listen to medical journals, you and proletarian both. Don't twist everything around, just to bicker, you ball-less little turd!!!




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > A fetus is physiologically dependent on the woman. The born infant and coma patient are sociologically dependent, because without the brilliant technology medical science has, and the kindness and love of a wide variety of people taking care of them, they would simply not survive.  Being pregnant and keeping it does not take love or responsibility. Lots of crack babies come into this world, by heroin injecting mothers who sleep with 100 different men a week. These same women (and any women for that matter) could die at any time, therefore ceasing THEMSELVES the capability of any physiological capacity to continue gestatING the fetus or embryo whatever you wish to apply it to.
> ...



Fuck off. Now you want to throw more ad hominems at me, saying that I am being selfish, just because physical dependence is not some kind of entitlement. Whats next? We give everyone on life support our organs, also, just to keep the inevitable "d" word from happening??? DIFFERENTIATE for yourself, the meaning of the words sociological dependence and physiological fucking dependence. If LATE TERM physiological dependence was sooooo fucking necessary, then how is it that first trimester physiological dependence is expendable you fucking little termite head?? THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. Shove your emotional fucking hyperbole up your ass. Physiological dependence =/= sociological dependence. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive. I am sick and fucking tired of having to repeat every fucking thing and sentence I say, just because you want to play the fucking semantics game with me. Fucking knock that shit off. Why the fuck ELSE do you think I would feel the need to write a fucking NOVEL on each and every fucking post?? Jesus fucking Joney. Give me a fucking break. You can't be THAT pea-brained.
> ...



For CHOOSING NOT TO PUT A CHILD IN GOOD HANDS OTHER THAN ONE'S OWN, ORRRRRRRRRR... FOR THINKING THAT ONE IS DOING EVERYTHING THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO, CORRECTLY, BUT NOT DOING IT RIGHT. 

That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch. 



> For someone who claims to be libertarian you have some rather liberal characterisitcs in spades. Mainly an overwhelming desire to be held accountable for as little as you can get away with.



Ad hominem... You don't hate ME, you hate my STANCE, and you are angry because my logic and sources are MOUNTAINS better than your own. Stay on topic, asshole. Try, for ONCE, to make an argument that is not chocked full of crying and whining, please. 



> You have passed what I call the point of no return in this debate. I told I was interested in the truth, whatever it may be. You observabley are not. You couldn't afford to admit you are wrong even if it were proven. People who invest as much time as you do insulting and degrading people probably aren't going to man up and say, 'you know what, maybe you're right', Someone could grab you by the back the head and point your eyes to the clear sky and you would spend your last breath before you ever would admit it was the color the blue. It's at that point it just becomes fun to watch people dig deeper holes with the excuses they make. The dictionary is wrong. That's up there honey. Thanks for the laugh.



It WAS fun to watch you be a complete ignorant ass at first, but now it is BLATANTLY obvious that by the facts mentioned below, you are doomed to remain in the state of blissful "I do not believe that, and will not educate myself further, as a result!":

1- You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct" that fetuses are people. Your stance is entirely emotional in it's basis, and you cant GET PAST the emotions that have crippled your own logic.

2- You refuse to even READ any of the sources I gave you, which both negate your own stance, as well as build mine, immensely. 

3- You keep referring to me in a personal sense as being amoral or some variation of such, based on absolutely NO personal knowledge of me or my child, and only basing it on the facts I lay out for you, as well as the thorough explanations, which you also only read half of, as a part of your ignorant way of life. 

4- You play semantics games and try to turn "The tree is green and growing" into "the tree is purple with pink polka dots and has been uprooted.", showing me that you have the intellectual capacity of a sapling.  

5- You REFUSE to even ARGUE your own failing stance within the debate, and have spent the past week or so, only trying not to drown, by constantly trying to just belittle and berate my PLETHORA of sources, and logical explanations, just because your overactive emotions will not allow you to accept certain truths, such as sociological dependence being a far cry from physiological dependence, which I have spelled out in more ways than Webster. 

GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

> That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE  AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.



So, too, can abortion....

Stating that you clearly want to have zero liability for anything you do (including lynching people, as you implied in another thread), is not a ad hominum attack. Crying 'ad hom' when one has not been committed is known as crying. It indicates a total lack of maturity or intellectual capacity on your part.


> You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct"  that fetuses are people.



You refuse to provide any sources supporting your claim (provenly false) that the Autonomic Nervous System  magically pops into existence with the first breath or your laughable claim (again debunked several times) that every single medical journal and medical textbook on Earth is wrong and the mother's blood actually goesinto the fetus. You've also yet to show thatyouknow what cells, tissues, and organisms are or that you understand why you can't have puppies with the family dog, You've also failed to demonstratethat the concious mind magically pops into existence with the first breath or present a shred of evidence supporting your claim that a living thing is not alive until it, despite being alive, comes to life when it receives life with that same first breath.


> GROW A FUCKING BRAIN.



How many puppies are you expecting to give birth to this litter?Howamny breaths before their living tissue suddenly becomes alive?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1887563 said:
			
		

> Sorry, JD, but you failed again.
> 
> So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.



Legal gurdians can change, and often do. Nobody is physically responsible or unavoidably legally responsible for another human being, and this is fact. You hate that I am right, but this is still fact, and crossing _your_ fingers does not change this. 



> > As long as this is a discussion about the wording of the constitution  towards some right to life for a person
> 
> 
> Which you suddenly decided three posts ago? Why do you change your claims so oft,unless they keep getting proven false- like you claim about fetal blood supply that Cecile and later I proved false?
> ...



In a coffee shop as opposed to a uterus. You know the point- Move on.



> Interesting how you reject every concept of personhood yet never define it yourself. Not surprising,though, since you've said repeatedly that personhood is not important to you, since you want to kill the child anyway.



I have. I said multiple times, the first breath, and I gave a variety of reasons for it, many of which, you, the master troll , have either disregarded the remainder of the post, etc, and played semantics Suzy on one line, taking it completely out of context in the process. Dork.



> And some, like you, never master reading comprehension. What's your point?



Troll... 


> False. You've yet to define 'personhood' or establish that it is a necessary condition for rights. You've also yet to show how your undefined term ('personhood') is established by the moving of the diaphragm when an organism is in an atmospheric environment.



That is untrue, and your ignorance is showing that I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air. I also did not limit it to breathing to retain sentience, so no playing semantics with me. I shouldn't even entertain your posts, because of this, I should keep your sorry ass on ignore. Look at my rep compared to yours, for verification of that one. 




> The bible is not evidence.



No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can and has been proven THROUGH evidence. 




> > I do not believe in life after death.
> 
> 
> You have to. You already said that whatever the bible says is true. (I wonder what it says about a woman's place.)



The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust. Even hell fire is not a literal biblical reference. It refers to Gemorrah, a large pit of fire where they used to burn the bodies of people who were undeserving of a proper burial by using sulphur. The bodies that did not make it all the way into the fire, would drop to a ledge, causing the worms to eat it. 



> > No one is physiologically responsible for keeping anyone alive
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A fetus is physiologically dependent, but a woman is not physiologically responsible. Big difference between a fetus needing a biological sustainment system, and a person having some requirement to BE a biological sustainment system.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1887747 said:
			
		

> > That has NO bearing on this conversation, because CHILD NEGLECT CAN BE  AVOIDED LEGALLY, you dumb fucking bitch.
> 
> 
> So, too, can abortion....
> ...



So, too, can pregnancy. Indicating otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding on YOUR part. =)


> > You refuse to use any sources whatsoever to improve your "gut instinct"  that fetuses are people.
> 
> 
> You refuse to provide any sources supporting your claim (provenly false) that the Autonomic Nervous System  magically pops into existence with the first breath or your laughable claim (again debunked several times) that every single medical journal and medical textbook on Earth is wrong and the mother's blood actually goesinto the fetus. You've also yet to show thatyouknow what cells, tissues, and organisms are or that you understand why you can't have puppies with the family dog, You've also failed to demonstratethat the concious mind magically pops into existence with the first breath or present a shred of evidence supporting your claim that a living thing is not alive until it, despite being alive, comes to life when it receives life with that same first breath.




I did. Mine and yours. You can't respond directly to that post I made in response to YOUR medical studies, now, can ya. 

Of course not. Too intimidated?? What are you, chicken or something?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.
> ...



That is sociological dependence, not physiological. If it cannot take care of itself, and there is no chance of anything else being alive to be its biological OR technological sustainment system, neither of which are fail safe- it will NOT survive. 





> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.
> ...



Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I thought she said the baby taking its first breath, gives the baby person-hood....the breath of life....and all, including protections, that comes with such, under the law....I presume she meant?



http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-34.html#post1869992


> You have, in no way, changed my opinions on personhood or when life  begins other than the first breath...
> 
> This is about breathing being the first signs of life. Try to follow...
> 
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/98398-what-should-abortion-laws-be-37.html



> The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific,  medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the  religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.



http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-40.html#post1887157


> I do not believe that abortion is killing anything Ever.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...00-fetus-found-in-gift-box-2.html#post1815568


> is [the bible]the worlds first 100% accurate science book


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...t-should-abortion-laws-be-41.html#post1887750

You know, because plants existed on Earth before the sun existed 



> Until the baby is BORN, which is when it takes its first breath after delivery....only then a certificate of live birth is given...if the baby to be does NOT take its first breath, under the law it is considered stillborn-delivered dead...I believe?  And under the law, she would be correct in her assumptions on person-hood.



Personhood and life are not equivalent terms. Nor do Scotus or a bunch of Jewish cavemen trump scientific fact.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

> I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air.



Why lie about what you've said? I'm just going to post your own words and prove you a lying ****.

We've done this before.



> No, but it is the worlds first 100% accurate science book, and it can  and has been proven THROUGH evidence.



Plants on Earth before the sun existed 

You're so retarded it's actually amusing 



> The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no  knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust



Fail. The life after the first death is for those who avoid the second death by accepting salvation 


Not a single Christian has read the bible


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> So, too, can pregnancy. Indicating otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding on YOUR part. =)




And there you have it. Who wants to go back and post me and Cecile explaining birth control to JD while she made excuse after excuse for not taking the pill, using a condom, or getting a pregnancy test?

Now she has finally admitted a complete lack of understanding on her part- and shown she finally grasps that a woman getting pregnant is her own fault because she failed to take the necessary preacuations to prevent pregnancy. Of course, this flies in the face of her 'we're not responsible for our own actions because we have vaginas neofaminazi rant earlier.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> So long as you are the legal guardian, you are legally responsible for that child's well being. Your claim that nobody is ever held responsible has been proven false.
> 
> Legal gurdians can change, and often do. Nobody is physically responsible or unavoidably legally responsible for another human being, and this is fact. You hate that I am right, but this is still fact, and crossing _your_ fingers does not change this.



Legally no it is not fact. Again you don't think about what you say before you say it. Yes gaurdianship could change, but if you have no responsibility to keep your child alive, by your argument you shouldn't even have to put it up for adoption. If you aren't responsible for it at all, then you don't have to feed it, or nurture it or even go through the process of finding another legal gaurdian for it. I am not playing semantics. YOU are trying to wiggle out of the reality of what you said. Call me fucking dumb, or pea brain or whatever imature insult you want to hurl, but when someone uses the phrase 'no responsibility' I assume they mean NO responsibility, which would include the responsibility of going through the process to haveinglegal gaurdianship changed. 

As to me not providing evidence for my stance; sorry you're simply going to have to accept that I don't have to to be right. All I have to do is show how asanine your position of when it occurs is. As close as anyone has been able to pin you down as to the why personhood begins when you say it does is because that's when a child takes it's first breath. You have argued because that is when it becomes alive, which is ludicrous. Biological all that changed was the process by which it accomplished the function of getting oxygen into its system. The evidence you lack is what that function has to do with personhood (again your made up term).

Lastly, do you really want to get into a debate about ad hominems - another term you don't understand given the way you used it - when you seemingly need to add an expletive filled insult at the end of every paragraph?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.



I agree. What does that have to do with the dictionary being wrong? My point is you would be hard pressed to show a measurable difference in the dependence of a child immediately before taking a breath and immediately after. One's level of dependence is a factor of one's ability to self govern.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Self governing is not something fetuses do. Hate it all you want.
> ...




LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context. 
I said that fetuses are not autonomous. 

To be independent, one must have at least SOME autonomy. Being inside of a uterus, and DEPENDENT on that uterus is a far cry from an infant, who, being on the OUTSIDE, and CAPABLE of being cared for by ANYONE, whose survival is not LIMITED by whatever happens to the woman. 

There IS dependence in both situations. I am not a fucking retard, I have SAID this, numerous times. The DIFFERENCE between the two types of dependence, and I will only spell this out for you one last time, is this:

Physical dependence is something you guys are trying to claim is not SOLELY biological dependence. You guys are ignoring the fact that there are a billion people in this world, on any given day, who would be more than willing to take care of a child, to feed it, to nurture it, etc. That is a SOCIOLOGICAL FACT. Thus, claiming that ALL CHILDREN are somehow EMPIRICALLY and SOLELY Physically dependent upon ONLY the mother for survival, and therefore are entitled to the mother's time, energy, etc, as a result, is an utterance of such massively illogical proportions, that it is UNBELIEVABLE to me that any of you would stoop to such an argument in the first place. It is wrong. That is a sociological dependence. The father is just as capable of caring for the child as the mother. A STRANGER to the mother and infant can take care of the infant. The mother is NOT a physical NEED of the fetus, and as such, there is no physical dependence upon her. Only a sociological one. 

EVERYONE is physically dependent upon EVERYTHING to work in harmony with each other in nature. Physical dependence is a dependence, but this is not an entitlement issue. If the bee population continues to decrease in the manner it has been doing for the past 20 years (it has gone down by half), there will be a major issue for us, in food production, flower and plant life, air quality, and the overall structure of how the feeding cycle could eventually completely QUIT all because bees are apparently losing population at a massive rate. This is a physical dependence issue. We have air, and some of us appreciate it, but some of us do not.. Either way, we are not entitled to it. If everything goes kerplunk in our faces, we could be without air, food, etc..  Physical dependency can't possibly be considered a "responsibility" or a "entitlement", which is what I am seeing you all saying, as I read between the lines, when you say "dependency". A fetus is physically dependent- but that does not make the mother ultimately responsible for it's wholeness or well being. Like I said, the mother can get sick, injured, beaten up, killed, die of natural causes, have no knowledge of being pregnant or concern, even, based on having few periods, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. Physical (physiological) dependence is not an entitlement to whatever needs are required for survival. A person has a physiological dependence that the brakes on their car will function, or that her tires will hold up during her commute from point A to point B, in modern times of driving.. That does not mean that she is ENTITLED to them working right. She might not have rotated them enough, the tires might be bald, they might have too much or too little air in them, etc, etc, they might even be brand spanking new, and if she hits a shard of glass or something in the road, poof! Her life is over. I know I sound very cynical in this thread, but the fact is that there is NO fucking _entitlement_ to shit working in our favors, EVER. We can be hopeful, we can want, dream and desire it, but that never ever ever entitles us to having some kind of a charmed, stress free life, where Murphy's Law sometimes does not come into play.

Sociological dependency is different. It is a social expectation that people act a certain way. There is not even a social expectation that a mother or father parent their children. The only expectation is that if they choose to do so, they do not abuse or neglect them. That's it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other widely accepted options available. This is where autonomy comes into play. The woman is autonomous. That can not be denied. If, for some reason, Murphy's Law comes into play during ANY time, whether she is pregnant, or not, then she IS entitled to make decisions that could either continue or end her life, harm herself, and yes- end a pregnancy. 

The sociological expectation is really (objectively speaking) the only thing that currently prevents women from having abortions on demand in the later months. The entire premise of this expectation is based almost entirely on emotional rhetoric surrounding quickening, and what it "might" mean for a fetus to be "felt" by the woman when it is larger and has certain movements that are simply sensed by our touch and vision. The emotions that a person feels in correlation with a fetus' "kicks", are really strong. It suddenly becomes "logic", then, to decide right then and there, that the fetus knows it is kicking, or, to a more objective person, that it "might", and that people should "err on the side of caution", "just in case" the emotions of the person who has strong feelings towards the fetus as a result of this, are HURT, because that person is SO FRAGILE, that they cant handle it if someone else that they don't even fucking know, chooses to end their pregnancy, or the pregnancy is LOST. 

Finally, again, I say to you- Get a fucking grip.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on, if you expect a response from now on. Thanks! =)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1887795 said:
			
		

> > I have not defined personhood as a baby taking it's first breath of air.
> 
> 
> Why lie about what you've said? I'm just going to post your own words and prove you a lying ****.
> ...



No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later. 

Gen 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 
 3 *And God said, "Let there be light,"* and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and *He separated the light from the darkness.* 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morningthe first day.

 
 6 *And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."* 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morningthe second day.

 
 9 And God said, *"Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.*" And it was so. 10 *God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas.*" And God saw that it was good. 
11 *Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation*: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.

 14 *And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."* And it was so. 16 *God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
*17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day. 



Gen 2
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. 
*When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [b] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth *[c] and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but *streams [d]* *came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-* 7 the LORD God formed the man [e] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.  8 Now the LORD God had *planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground*trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 



> > The bible does not say there is life after death. It says there is no  knowledge after death. It says we go back to the dust
> 
> 
> Fail. The life after the first death is for those who avoid the second death by accepting salvation



I know that- but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust. The life that follows is not an entitlement either. It is something we must choose. When we go back to the dust, there is no knowledge..  We are only granted having our knowledge returned, during the time we are judged by our actions. 
*Ecclesiastes 9:10*
Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave,  there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.

*Psalm 89:48*
No one can live forever; all will die.No one can escape the power of the grave.

*Proverbs 15:24*
The path of life leads upward for the wise;they leave the grave  behind.

*1 Corinthians 2:7*
No, the wisdom we speak of is the mystery of God his plan that was previously hidden, even though he made it for our ultimate glory before the world began.

*James 3:17*
But the wisdom from above is first of all pure. It is also peace loving, gentle at all times, and willing to yield to others. It is full of mercy and good deeds. It shows no favoritism and is always sincere.

*Job 10:19*
It would be as though I had never existed,going directly from the womb to the grave.

*Job 17:13*
What if I go to the grave and make my bed in darkness?

*Job 17:16*
No, my hope will go down with me to the grave.We will rest together in the dust!

*Psalm 6:5*
For the dead do not remember you.Who can praise you from the grave?

*Psalm 30:9*
What will you gain if I die,if I sink into the grave?Can my dust praise you?Can it tell of your faithfulness?

*Psalm 88:5*
They have left me among the dead,and I lie like a corpse in a grave.I am forgotten,cut off from your care.

*Psalm 88:11*
Can those in the grave declare your unfailing love?Can they proclaim your faithfulness in the place of destruction?






> Not a single Christian has read the bible



Whether you have read it or not is not the problem. Too many people simply do not study it. Thankfully, now we have internet to cross analyze various verses between different bible translations, and see how they relate to each other. 

*Jeremiah 20:17*
because he did not kill me at birth.Oh, that I had died in my mothers womb,that her body had been my grave!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I am not a fucking retard.



All evidence to the contrary.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on




It's your turn


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later.
> 
> Gen 1
> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.  2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 3 *And God said, "Let there be light,"* and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and *He separated the light from the darkness.* 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."  And there was evening, and there was morningthe  first day.



Today's homework assignment. Explain why we have day and night.



> 11 *Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation*: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morningthe third day.



Day 1 - Night and Day

Day 3 - Plants


> 14 *And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."* And it was so. 16 *God made two great lightsthe greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.*


*'
*
Hey, you bolded it for me. So now the sun and moon are created... except the moon's not really a light, but a bunch of Jewish cavemen didn't know that. When was this?


> 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morningthe fourth day.



Wait... It said he already separated them... and that plants were made the day before the sun and other stars.

You were just talking about you being a retard, weren't you?





> Gen 2



YAY! More contradictions.
  The entire timelines clash, but there's really no need to bother explaining it because (1) you're an illiterate retard with no reading comprehension skills anyway and (2) I already debunked you religion and your claims above.


> I know that



No, you don't. Well, you didn't until I just taught you. That's why you said there was no life after death, despite Jesus' entire promise being eternal life after physical death.


> - but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust


Not quite. The body does, but the body doesn't matter. The soul matters, and it's the death of the soul that is the second death (the Outer Darkness). First you base your argument on religion, and now I have to teach you your religion?

About you being a fucking retard...


> *Ecclesiastes 9:10*
> Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave,  there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.
> 
> *Psalm 89:48*
> No one can live forever; all will die.No one can escape the power of the grave.



References to the First Death. Please, if you're going to quote bible passages, try to get a clue about what they mean first.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > A fetus is every bit as "self-governing" as an adult woman is, in the sense that his growth and biological functions are directed independently by his own body, not by hers or anyone else's.
> ...



Please stop disingenuously conflating different issues.  We are not talking about "independent" in the sense of being able to cook his own meals.  We are talking independence in the biological sense, something you have made painfully obvious you cannot answer, given the way you run off and start talking about extraneous topics every time biology rears its ugly head in your path.  You are fooling no one with this bait-and-switch nonsense.



JD_2B said:


> > Furthermore, when a fetus moves, that movement is directed by HIS brain and nervous system, not hers or anyone else's.  In fact, there is no time in the existence of a fetus in which his mother is ever "governing" of anything about him personally.  She is only governing of the space around him, which isn't even close to the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, since her bloodstream runs directly to the fetus' bloodstream, then there is no way that you can make the inference that her actions and day to day activities, even, do not affect the fetus as well. If she so much as lays on her back a certain way, her major arteries can experience just enough blockage to slow the fetus' oxygen delivery from HER body, as a result of HER decision to rest herself in a comfortable way, that the fetus can, and sometimes does, cease to continue growing.



Actually, her bloodstream DOESN'T run directly into the fetus's, as you've been told and shown multiple times.  I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by stubbornly clinging to and repeating thoroughly debunked misinformation.



JD_2B said:


> By the way, to be consistent in your own beliefs, applying the logic that the metabolism or a hiccup is some form of autonomy and self governance, then you must also apply this logic to that of the also metabolizing embryo, and early fetus.
> Having reflexes is not autonomy, in any event.



Who says?  And who ever said the embryo wasn't just as autonomous in the exact same sense?  The only person I see around here desperately clinging to any possible straw in order to classify an entire group as expendable is YOU.



JD_2B said:


> And, if she governs the space around the fetus, in a 360 degree range, then how is it that she does not govern the space that is within this space as well? How do you even BEGIN to figure on that one? LOL!!



Um, one space is not another space, that's how.  Pima County governs the space entirely surrounding the city of Tucson, but the city government governs the space inside the city limits.  If I hug my son, I'm in charge of the space around him made up of my arms and body, but that doesn't mean he's not governing the space taken up by his own body.

Sorry if the difference between "surrounding" and "absorbing" is too tough for you, Dog Girl.



JD_2B said:


> I never said like an adult. I said that a newborn premature baby will have MORE response than its counterpart fetus, even if both were conceived on the exact same day. Stop playing semantics soldier with me, and twisting my words around to have a new meaning. I swear you people just LOOOOVE those pathetic strawman arguments. =)



There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb.  Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I don't like and can't answer".



JD_2B said:


> No you fucking dimbulb, I specifically said that there is NO study that measures actual personhood, because personhood is, as of yet, a subjective belief system. The judicial system bases the definition as akin to the scientific, medical belief that breathing causes life to begin, as well as the religious belief of Christianity, among other religions as well.



Brilliant.  "I think the laws on abortion should be this because this is what the laws on abortion are."  Talk about circular reasoning.  Talk about dimbulbs.



JD_2B said:


> PS I already showed you the studies. It is not MY ignorance that is preventing you from reading it.
> 
> 
> 
> When has anyone said anything derogatory about Christians???? LMAO!!!.



You trying to represent your noxious ignorance as state-of-the-art religious teaching is pretty insulting.



JD_2B said:


> Glad none of your pregnancies came at a bad time for you. Also glad I am not strapped down by three kids..



Who said they didn't come at a bad time?  The difference wasn't in the quality of circumstances between you and me. The difference was in the quality of woman.

Personally, I'm glad three children aren't "strapped down" by YOU.  I feel very sorry for the child who IS cursed with you, and has to live being viewed as a burden to a waste of space, rather than valued as a blessing.




JD_2B said:


> PS- I did SAY that observation of a pregnancy from a personal perspective made both of us none the wiser.. LOVE the way you, as per the usual, blissfully ignored that..



Oh, no, I'm well aware that being pregnant taught YOU nothing whatsoever.  However, your experience is proof of nothing concerning anyone else's experience, unless they happen to be as shallow, selfish, and willfully obtuse as you are.  I find it quite blissful that that doesn't describe me, thanks.



JD_2B said:


> From the lack of a true to life avatar of the bags that are surely under your eyes, and the migraine medicine next to your keyboard, I wonder..   Tee hee!!



"Tee hee". Only a damned fool posts their own picture on the Internet for any crazed yahoo to get hold of.  Just because you're as ignorant of Internet danger as you are of biology doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.






JD_2B said:


> I love your flaming.. It is certainly not up to par with anything anyone would consider logic, but hey, if it makes you feel better about your life...



Trust me, if you were to ever think anything I said lived up to what you consider logic, I would really have to rethink that position on the spot.  I'll give you credit, though, for making my life look even better than usual.  There, but for as traumatic brain injury, go I . . .




JD_2B said:


> And still, a fetus is none of the above. Independence is not achieved if one is required to be confined to a biological support system.



And still you flatter yourself, thinking that you are going to be allowed to arbitrarily define words and the parameters of the debate for everyone else.  Tell me again why I'm going to accept your assertion on anything, Dog Girl?



JD_2B said:


> No shit. You can talk to HIM about that, though. I never once claimed that INVOLUNTARY movements were somehow a form of autonomy. Again, ignorance is bliss..



Again, topic-hopping is ignorance, so you must be the most blissful person in the world.  It's not even worth pointing out your deliberate misunderstandings anymore.  I can just let them stand for everyone to laugh at.





JD_2B said:


> The dictionary is not a peer reviewed medical journal, last time I checked.



LOL  So now ONLY peer-reviewed medical journals are reliable sources of information, even for word definitions.  Can you really be this stupid and desperate?



JD_2B said:


> Boo.. Is that ALL you've GOT, REALLY?????



As long as I'm not claiming dogs can impregnate humans, I'm way ahead of you in the argument, Punkinhead.



JD_2B said:


> Can't fight straightforward logic, my dear! Besides, nobody SAID that. You are not even sounding REASONABLE here. :



We'll never know if I can fight straightforward logic as long as I'm talking to you, my court jester.  And as I've said many times, one of my main goals is to never descend into anything that YOU would view as reasonable, Dog Girl.





JD_2B said:


> Matter of opinion.  Just because YOU decide that people have no entitlement to life doesn't make it objectively true.



And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof. [/QUOTE]

Very true, but this is a thread about what the laws SHOULD be, not what they are at the moment.  In the 60s, I could have said, "Just because you want to throw your children in the garbage because they get in the way of you bringing drunks home from the bar does NOT mean you have that right" and been just as correct, and just as irrelevant to the thread.

Really, if you can't thrash your way to rationality, at LEAST attempt to keep a hold on the topic, huh?



JD_2B said:


> Noperss.. That's what you get for skimming. He posted ZILCH. Nothing. Not even ONE article to even begin debating.
> Why am I defending myself against such a flaming little ignorant troll anyways???



Because it's the only slim hope you have of regaining any shred of credibility after spending pages insisting to everyone that your dog really can impregnate you.



JD_2B said:


> > As for why he's ignoring half of what you say, I'm assuming it's because 90% of what you say is self-serving, uneducated bullshit, and he's a lot nicer than you deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, dumbass, because unlike you, I don't reject the entire dictionary as an unreliable source because it refuses to define words the way I want them.  Therefore, I know what the word "fetus" means.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Fix your tags, Cecile.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context.
> I said that fetuses are not autonomous.



Then what would be the point of stating that the dictionary is not peer reviewed if one is not trying to justify using a word in a way in which the dictionary does not define it? We've already seen you do this with regard to the word person.

Short and sweet? Fine

1)A child doesn't care about your made up distinctions between types of dependence. I repeat for the umpteenth time. If it is not cared for by someone it will die. At best you can perhaps make a distinction between physical RESPONSIBILITY and social RESPONSIBILITY, that I'd buy. But that is a lot different then who and what the child is dependent on. Legally, YOU are responsible for your child until you go through the legal process of relinquishing your guardianship of it, BUT (next point)....

2) You stated NO one is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive. Therefore you are arguing it really should be your legal right to do absolutely nothing. Again I'm not playing semantics here. When someone says NO responsibility, I assume they mean NO responsibility. So either man up and put some qualifiers with NO or explain why you don't have that responsibility despite what the law says.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1887245 said:
			
		

> > I have a LOT more than just pictures of aborted fetuses to determine my  stance on abortion,
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you have illiteracy and ignorance behind you



And the unshakable belief that her dog impregnated her.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1887278 said:
			
		

> I get the distinct impression I confused her when I said 'neuroplasticity'
> .
> 
> Too many syllables. Also, I think the letters MD after Mr.McCullagh's name might have thrown her off as well.



What really threw her is that you disagreed with her cherished worldview.  Ergo, it couldn't have existed at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Jackpot!  We have a winner, folks!  It's Miller time!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> PS- I am not responding to five long ass posts full of flaming shit every fucking day anymore. Keep it short, make a fucking point, and move the fuck on, if you expect a response from now on. Thanks! =)



Okay.  You're an evil, self-centered, uneducated slut.  That short and pointed enough for you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1889925 said:
			
		

> Fix your tags, Cecile.



Pardon me?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1889925 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You already fixed them. Why are you responding after fixing them?

If you're trying to make me doubt my sanity, you're much too late.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1890234 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1889925 said:
> ...



I don't even know what you're talking about.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1890234 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Liar 
'

_ 					 						Last edited by Cecilie1200; Today at 07:29 PM. 					 					 				_


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1890245 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1890234 said:
> ...



Oh, you mean when I accidentally hit the "Submit" before I was finished with the reply, and completed it later?  Sorry about that.  I'm using my husband's computer, and it's a sucky pain in the ass.

I had no idea what "tags" meant.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 10, 2010)

Excuses, excuses


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1889871 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > No, dummy.. There was Bright sunlight first, water next, and Day and Night came later.
> ...



Because a few days into creation, literally meaning a couple billion years, God's Earth began to rotate, and revolve around the sun. Before this, the earth was shapeless and void. It wasn't even ROUNDED all the way, until sometime in the era of the "second day". This is fluid with the Big Bang, you asshat. 



> Day 1 - Night and Day
> 
> Day 3 - Plants



You missed water, and the second day. 









*'
*


> Hey, you bolded it for me. So now the sun and moon are created... except the moon's not really a light, but a bunch of Jewish cavemen didn't know that. When was this?



The moon is reflective of sunlight, therefore it is a night time light source. 
Without the moon, there would be no sun rays which light the dark, giving us "moonlight"... The moon may not be the SOURCE of the light, but it causes light to happen for the Earth, without the requirement of it being a heat source. 



> Wait... It said he already separated them... and that plants were made the day before the sun and other stars.



That is not what it said. It said that the sun was made, then the water, then the plants. You are do idiotic it's scary. 




> YAY! More contradictions.
> The entire timelines clash, but there's really no need to bother explaining it because (1) you're an illiterate retard with no reading comprehension skills anyway and (2) I already debunked you religion and your claims above.



1- My IQ is, no doubt, five times whatever yours is. I find it amazing that you even function at all. 


2- Nope.. Again, you only showed your own consistent usage of twisting things into other things, rather than just following logically the basic pattern laid out in black and white for you. 



> No, you don't. Well, you didn't until I just taught you. That's why you said there was no life after death, despite Jesus' entire promise being eternal life after physical death.



There IS no EMPIRICAL life after death, even in the context of being resurrected, you moron. And why are you acting like this is some kind of entitlement anyways??? Wow!!

[quote[





> - but it also says that we do, initially, go back to the dust


Not quite. The body does, but the body doesn't matter. The soul matters, and it's the death of the soul that is the second death (the Outer Darkness). First you base your argument on religion, and now I have to teach you your religion?[/quote]

"And he breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and Adam BECAME a LIVING SOUL."

A soul is just a body. This is also another one that is consistent in the Bible. The bible says that there is no life, when we die. Gee what a concept. 



> About you being a fucking retard...



Speak for yourself. 



> > *Ecclesiastes 9:10*
> > Whatever you do, do well. For when you go to the grave,  there will be no work or planning or knowledge or wisdom.
> >
> > *Psalm 89:48*
> ...



As I said.. We have the right to die. Death is final, take it or leave it.. I could care less... BUT Try to stay on topic, please.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 10, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Any reasonable person would infer that a biological dependence that relies on ONE single solitary organism remaining alive for the sole purpose of sustainment for the other organism is one that only involves ONE independent organism, and that would be the woman. Nobody in their right fucking mind would consider a youngster anything other than independent just because someone else cooks for them. This is a societal responsibility, one that is only EVER taken willingly. Bringing a child into the world willingly is one person's choice for them, and another person can make the choice to do the diaper changing, cooking, breastfeeding, etc. If a woman births a baby and nurses it, and becomes that baby's caregiver, it is because she is adding a person to her familial society, by choice. This is not an empirically physical dependence that the baby has. If the woman dies, the baby's dad, aunt, uncle, grandparent, neighbor, mailman, etc, can just as easily ensure that it gets a bottle as the late mother could have.. 
With a fetus, the physical dependence is empirical. Without the mother, the fetus' chances of making it to birth are nill. 
This is empirical, not some bait and switch bullshit that I am just pulling out of my ass. Prove otherwise, and we can talk. I will not entertain any more of these bullshit whiny fucking posts by you three.   Get through it. 





> Actually, her bloodstream DOESN'T run directly into the fetus's, as you've been told and shown multiple times.  I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by stubbornly clinging to and repeating thoroughly debunked misinformation.



YES it DOES. The fetus without the mother's blood being delivered to it, is inevitably miscarried. THAT is empirical. The fetus can not produce an ample supply of blood to its own system to survive gestation, and it can not manage its own wastes during gestation either. EMPIRICALLY. 
Prove me wrong, if you can't swallow it, or shut the fuck up. 




> Who says?  And who ever said the embryo wasn't just as autonomous in the exact same sense?  The only person I see around here desperately clinging to any possible straw in order to classify an entire group as expendable is YOU.



You have me all wrong. I am not pro death. I realize that you are anti abortion to the point of coercing your own (hypothetically) raped 13 year old daughter into having to deal with 9 months of gestation and painful childbirth, all because you think that a 13 year old is going to somehow experience all kinds of happiness by her screaming brat whose eyes would remind her of her attacker on a daily basis, and probably haunt her until the day that she dies.. But hey if that is what you call "pro life", then that is all you. I say let her decide for herself, without needing your permission. Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again, by FORCING them to give the rapist the winning ticket, and go through with an entire pregnancy, after which time, she will be on welfare, and have to explain to VARIOUS men and women and her little teenage friends where her kid's daddy is.. Fucking BITCH. You are goddamned lucky I am not your daughter. That is called POWER AND CONTROL, and even your teenaged daughter should not be subjected to it, BY YOU. How DARE you try to expect everyone to live up to some bullshit right to life standard that you have subjectively set for a fetus, with NO concern for the actual PERSON involved, as well??? I'm tellin ya.. if I was your kid, you would have a VERY different story to tell. 



> Um, one space is not another space, that's how.  Pima County governs the space entirely surrounding the city of Tucson, but the city government governs the space inside the city limits.  If I hug my son, I'm in charge of the space around him made up of my arms and body, but that doesn't mean he's not governing the space taken up by his own body.



Jurisdiction of municipalities is a far cry from human autonomy. 

If you own your colon, you own the space inside of it, you stupid bitch. If you own your heart, you also own the blood that pumps through it. A Uterus is not some empty fucking space that is public fucking property for voters to decide on which procedures women should or should not be allowed to have done. Used to be that people like you would scream to high heaven over fucking BIRTH control, when it first came out. Get the fuck over yourself. 




> Sorry if the difference between "surrounding" and "absorbing" is too tough for you, Dog Girl.



Again, everything within the walls of a person's skin is theirs for the medical decision making..  I could care less what kind of strawman you are trying to pull at here, but it is a GIANT LEAP from reality. 



> There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb.  Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I don't like and can't answer".



That, in and of itself, was an ad-hominem.. Your argument for "oh the space in your uterus is public property, for me to vote on, because I do not agree with the FACTS here" is not going to get any BETTER by claiming that my FACTS are the result of my not liking your arguments. Your arguments are just ridiculous. 




> Brilliant.  "I think the laws on abortion should be this because this is what the laws on abortion are."  Talk about circular reasoning.  Talk about dimbulbs.



That is not what I said. Again, and this time I am saying it to you as a means to an end- I am not responding to any posts, even partially, if you are going to twist things around and play word games, or call me names all because you disagree. 



> You trying to represent your noxious ignorance as state-of-the-art religious teaching is pretty insulting.








> Who said they didn't come at a bad time?  The difference wasn't in the quality of circumstances between you and me. The difference was in the quality of woman.






> Personally, I'm glad three children aren't "strapped down" by YOU.  I feel very sorry for the child who IS cursed with you, and has to live being viewed as a burden to a waste of space, rather than valued as a blessing.









> Oh, no, I'm well aware that being pregnant taught YOU nothing whatsoever.  However, your experience is proof of nothing concerning anyone else's experience, unless they happen to be as shallow, selfish, and willfully obtuse as you are.  I find it quite blissful that that doesn't describe me, thanks.








> "Tee hee". Only a damned fool posts their own picture on the Internet for any crazed yahoo to get hold of.  Just because you're as ignorant of Internet danger as you are of biology doesn't mean the rest of us have to be.







> Trust me, if you were to ever think anything I said lived up to what you consider logic, I would really have to rethink that position on the spot.  I'll give you credit, though, for making my life look even better than usual.  There, but for as traumatic brain injury, go I . . .







> And still you flatter yourself, thinking that you are going to be allowed to arbitrarily define words and the parameters of the debate for everyone else.  Tell me again why I'm going to accept your assertion on anything, Dog Girl?









> Again, topic-hopping is ignorance, so you must be the most blissful person in the world.  It's not even worth pointing out your deliberate misunderstandings anymore.  I can just let them stand for everyone to laugh at.






> LOL  So now ONLY peer-reviewed medical journals are reliable sources of information, even for word definitions.  Can you really be this stupid and desperate?




Autonomy is defined as self governance, which does not give any empirical results of personhood in the fetal stage. 



> As long as I'm not claiming dogs can impregnate humans, I'm way ahead of you in the argument, Punkinhead.







> We'll never know if I can fight straightforward logic as long as I'm talking to you, my court jester.  And as I've said many times, one of my main goals is to never descend into anything that YOU would view as reasonable, Dog Girl.







> > And just because YOU decide that people do not have a right to die, or a right to govern their feminine, pregnant bodies as they see fit, without being treated like a human petri dish for forensics, does NOT mean that a fetus will have a right to life, or any entitlements, thereof.
> 
> 
> 
> Very true, but this is a thread about what the laws SHOULD be, not what they are at the moment.  In the 60s, I could have said, "Just because you want to throw your children in the garbage because they get in the way of you bringing drunks home from the bar does NOT mean you have that right" and been just as correct, and just as irrelevant to the thread.





No you would not have been correct. The only problem before Roe was that no woman who had ever filed for abortion rights was actually pregnant at the time. Its a little thing called "standing". Roe had it first. 



> Really, if you can't thrash your way to rationality, at LEAST attempt to keep a hold on the topic, huh?







> Because it's the only slim hope you have of regaining any shred of credibility after spending pages insisting to everyone that your dog really can impregnate you.








> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Hahahahaha I bet you looked into the eyes of the six year old's photograph and started thinking "what a mature looking FETUS!!!" Dumbass.
> ...





The dictionary is not a source of empirical evidence for personhood, at least where the definition of autonomy is concerned. 

PS-  = me laughing at your non attempts at debate, obviously having a meltdown. Get a fucking grip, will ya?


----------



## Lizzy Massacre (Jan 11, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



*LMAO!!! I love you JD_2B!  I hope to have the time to add to this discussion later on but it seems you're doing my half just fine! *


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 11, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> > Today's homework assignment. Explain why we have day and night.
> 
> 
> 
> Because a few days into creation








> Before this, the earth was shapeless and void. It wasn't even ROUNDED all the way,


It'
s not wholly rounded now, you twit.


> The moon is reflective of sunlight, therefore it is a night time light source.



That which reflects light is not itself a light. By your reasning, a tree is a light.


> That is not what it said. It said that the sun was made, then the water, then the plants. You are do idiotic it's scary.



Light, earth, water, plants, sun.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. UNless you claim the two greatlighjtsin the sky are some fireflies  


> here IS no EMPIRICAL life after death,



So we've established that you don't know what empirical means, or you'd know that it simply does not belong in that sentence. You don't want empirical evidemce and you're not allowed to use it, for to ask for such evidence is to spit in the face of faith and also open your religion up top debunking. The moment you places the bible above reality and fact, yu lost any claim to sanity, evidence, reason, or respect.


> A soul is just a body. This is also another one that is consistent in  the Bible. The bible says that there is no life, when we die.



:sigh:

Whatever. If you're too stupid to know your own religion, that's your own retardation and you have to live with it. 

Body=/= Soul. 


> Try to stay on topic



Have you looked in the mirror?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 11, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> ictims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine  months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever  finding a man that would care about them again



Wait... Did you just compare every day you spend with your child to being raped?


And did you just cry that you should allowed to kill your baby because you like guys who beat you (as you said in another thread) and they don't like you having stretch marks?

So your own desire to get gangbanged by shallow guys is more important than the life of your child...

And they let you keep your kid? 

Anyone else waiting for her to be the next woman in the news to drown her kid because the guy she wants doesn't want a child around?


> > There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a  child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb.   Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I  don't like and can't answer".
> 
> 
> That, in and of itself,  was an ad-hominem..



No, it';s not, you illiterate c*nt. Try learning what you're talking about for a change.

BTW, Norma McCormey didn't have an abortion, she admits to lying n court, and she's now an extreme pro-lifer.

Try selling her your little spiel.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lizzy Massacre said:


> *LMAO!!! I love you JD_2B!  I hope to have the time to add to this discussion later on but it seems you're doing my half just fine! *



Hey we look forward to it. You can't do any worse than your friend here.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 11, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1890976 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > ictims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine  months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever  finding a man that would care about them again
> ...



DID I?? 

Nope!! I said a 13 year old (the ones that you apparently also advocate the raping of, you fucking psychopath) VICTIM should have the CHOICE of how her body is treated, by making HER OWN medical fucking decisions. 
Christ, you are such a sociopath. WTF... 




> And did you just cry that you should allowed to kill your baby because you like guys who beat you (as you said in another thread) and they don't like you having stretch marks?



Nope. Not once have I said either thing. 

Oh wait.. I broke my own rules. This post is full of word twisting, obviously changing things I have actually said into things that I never said, and never would say....  
Well, Jackoff.. Bye!!!



> So your own desire to get gangbanged by shallow guys is more important than the life of your child...
> 
> And they let you keep your kid?






> Anyone else waiting for her to be the next woman in the news to drown her kid because the guy she wants doesn't want a child around?





> > > There's nothing "semantic" about pointing out that a  child outside the womb has more stimuli than a baby inside the womb.   Believe it or not, "semantic" and "strawman" don't mean "arguments I  don't like and can't answer".
> >
> >
> > That, in and of itself,  was an ad-hominem..
> ...





No need.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 11, 2010)

What a shame.. so, now that nobody will listen to your endlessly flaming little mental meltdowns,....   





y'all suddenly have nothing to say???

    




 GO FIGURE!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2010)

Lizzy Massacre said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh, so you were planning to argue that dogs can impregnate humans, too?  In that case, I'm glad you're too busy to clutter up these boards further.  Run along.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 11, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Lizzy Massacre said:
> 
> 
> > *LMAO!!! I love you JD_2B!  I hope to have the time to add to this discussion later on but it seems you're doing my half just fine! *
> ...



More pie-eyed optimism.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 11, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> What a shame.. so, now that nobody will listen to your endlessly flaming little mental meltdowns,....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh JD, you know better. I can do this forever.



JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context. I said that fetuses are not autonomous.



Then what would be the point of stating that the dictionary is not peer reviewed if one is not trying to justify using a word in a way in which the dictionary does not define it? We've already seen you do this with regard to the word person.

Short and sweet? Fine

1)A child doesn't care about your made up distinctions between types of dependence. I repeat for the umpteenth time. If it is not cared for by someone it will die. At best you can perhaps make a distinction between physical RESPONSIBILITY and social RESPONSIBILITY, that I'd buy. But that is a lot different then who and what the child is dependent on. Legally, YOU are responsible for your child until you go through the legal process of relinquishing your guardianship of it, BUT (next point)....

2) You stated NO one is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive. Therefore you are arguing it really should be your legal right to do absolutely nothing. Again I'm not playing semantics here. When someone says NO responsibility, I assume they mean NO responsibility. It's you women always telling us neanderthals NO indeed does mean NO. So either man up and put some qualifiers with NO or explain why you don't have that responsibility despite what the law says.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 12, 2010)

Wow, the last ten pages are the same damn shit over again.  JD  you life support argument failed ten pages ago to viability questions as did the breathing without a single shred of evidence to support it.  I HAVE posted support for fetal brain development and all that you have done is misquote and misrepresent what the journals have stated.  All the links you have posted are off the topic and have nothing to do with your actual stance.  It strikes me as funny that you were against abortion up until the point that YOU NEEDED ONE!  THAT IS A CLASSIC EMOTIONAL RESPONSE and speaks to the true intent of that stance.  CONVENIENCE.  That is the issue we are all taking with abortion on demand.  I know people who have used abortion as a means of birth control and that is abhorrent.  You will stand on your right to end another life for the simple fact that it may give you stretch marks!  


> JD
> You have me all wrong. I am not pro death. I realize that you are anti abortion to the point of coercing your own (hypothetically) raped 13 year old daughter into having to deal with 9 months of gestation and painful childbirth, all because you think that a 13 year old is going to somehow experience all kinds of happiness by her screaming brat whose eyes would remind her of her attacker on a daily basis, and probably haunt her until the day that she dies.. But hey if that is what you call "pro life", then that is all you. I say let her decide for herself, without needing your permission. Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again, by FORCING them to give the rapist the winning ticket, and go through with an entire pregnancy, after which time, she will be on welfare, and have to explain to VARIOUS men and women and her little teenage friends where her kid's daddy is.. Fucking BITCH. You are goddamned lucky I am not your daughter. That is called POWER AND CONTROL, and even your teenaged daughter should not be subjected to it, BY YOU. How DARE you try to expect everyone to live up to some bullshit right to life standard that you have subjectively set for a fetus, with NO concern for the actual PERSON involved, as well??? I'm tellin ya.. if I was your kid, you would have a VERY different story to tell.


AND YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF TWISTING YOUR WORDS.  Bern, pro and myself NEVER stated anything of the sort of this.  As a matter of fact this was SPECIFICALLY addressed and the outcome is the opposite of your wild accusations.  The interesting part is here though.


> Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again


Talk about fucking vain.  Is that how you really see this world?  Then I can see how you support such a failing position.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 12, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> [
> Christ, you are such a sociopath. WTF...



Says the woman who  compared every day of her child's existence for 18 years to being raped.


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 12, 2010)

Abortion is a done deal right now. There is no way we are going back to the hodgepodge of the 60s.  The best thing is to reduce the need for abortion through education, birth control, free prenatal care, adoption services and low cost child care


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> Wow, the last ten pages are the same damn shit over again. JD  you life support argument failed ten pages ago to viability questions as did the breathing without a single shred of evidence to support it. I HAVE posted support for fetal brain development and all that you have done is misquote and misrepresent what the journals have stated. All the links you have posted are off the topic and have nothing to do with your actual stance. It strikes me as funny that you were against abortion up until the point that YOU NEEDED ONE! THAT IS A CLASSIC EMOTIONAL RESPONSE and speaks to the true intent of that stance. CONVENIENCE. That is the issue we are all taking with abortion on demand. I know people who have used abortion as a means of birth control and that is abhorrent. You will stand on your right to end another life for the simple fact that it may give you stretch marks!


 
LMAO!! You people fucking SUPPORT abortion on demand for convenience reasons for the first trimester, so whatever REASONS you want to play off as inconsequential at THIIS point, is just a whole mess of rhetoric. Furthermore, I never said that I personally would choose to have an abortion for avoiding stretch marks, so your claim that I would do this is out in left field, at best. 

You have not been at all active in the conversation, either, so whatever bullshit you want to try to pull here about my medical journal articles being unrelated to be "breathing makes it a person" stance, is obviously a shot in the fucking dark, as well, clearly made by a blind man who did nothing more than skim through the 35 past pages, at best. 



> > JD
> > You have me all wrong. I am not pro death. I realize that you are anti abortion to the point of coercing your own (hypothetically) raped 13 year old daughter into having to deal with 9 months of gestation and painful childbirth, all because you think that a 13 year old is going to somehow experience all kinds of happiness by her screaming brat whose eyes would remind her of her attacker on a daily basis, and probably haunt her until the day that she dies.. But hey if that is what you call "pro life", then that is all you. I say let her decide for herself, without needing your permission. Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again, by FORCING them to give the rapist the winning ticket, and go through with an entire pregnancy, after which time, she will be on welfare, and have to explain to VARIOUS men and women and her little teenage friends where her kid's daddy is.. Fucking BITCH. You are goddamned lucky I am not your daughter. That is called POWER AND CONTROL, and even your teenaged daughter should not be subjected to it, BY YOU. How DARE you try to expect everyone to live up to some bullshit right to life standard that you have subjectively set for a fetus, with NO concern for the actual PERSON involved, as well??? I'm tellin ya.. if I was your kid, you would have a VERY different story to tell.
> 
> 
> AND YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF TWISTING YOUR WORDS. Bern, pro and myself NEVER stated anything of the sort of this. As a matter of fact this was SPECIFICALLY addressed and the outcome is the opposite of your wild accusations. The interesting part is here though.


 
You ignorant bastard.. Pro started another thread in the religion and ethics forum on when it is ethically okay to end a life, etc., to which Cecile answered flat out that if her own daughter (13) was raped and pregnant, she would coerce her into having the baby, and all this "My kids know my wrath, but there would be hell to pay if she aborted" bullshit, as well. PROLETARIAN likes to link to other posts, and while I did not link to it, her own stance was no less honestly spelled out here. I didnt twist shit. Go look for yourself. 



> > Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked, damaging their chances of ever finding a man that would care about them again
> 
> 
> Talk about fucking vain. Is that how you really see this world? Then I can see how you support such a failing position.


 
Victims should not be treated like baby machines any more than any other woman should. When you figure out that my uterus is not some kind of public property for the common public to lay restrictions of choice upon, get back to me, please. =)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1894602 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


 
I did not.. you just personalize my comments as a means of using rhetoric, to try and further some ridiculous agenda of making women's uteruses public fucking prpoperty... Nice try.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 12, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1894602 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JD_2B said:


> Victims have rights to AT LEAST not be raped for 18 years, or even nine months, or have their figures wrecked,


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What a shame.. so, now that nobody will listen to your endlessly flaming little mental meltdowns,....
> ...


 
Go ahead.. just don't expect me to respond to a bunch of ridiculous word twisting, emotional hyperbole, or any other false propaganda tactics your side "(including Norma herself!) is infamous for. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > LMAO!! First of all, I never said that the dictionary's definition of autonomy WAS wrong. Again, you are getting all huffy and taking things out of context. I said that fetuses are not autonomous.
> ...


 
LMAO!!
A chairperson and a fetus being one and the same, even in concept, is ludicris!! That was the dictionary's example, to give you a better idea of the concept of what being a person means. 
I have done nothing with the dictionary definiton, besides make fun of you guys for grasping at straws, POSTING a definition which includes "chairperson", "salesperson", etc.. and yet not understanding that while all salespersons and chairpersons are people, not "ONE chairperson, or salesperson, or spokesperson is a fetus. I have asked you to prove me wrong on this, but you cannot, because these facts are just empirical. You can't BEND the truth, when the truth is that my empirical facts outweigh any arguments for potential that your bleeding fucking hearts tell you to fight for.



> Short and sweet? Fine..


 
Long winded and detailed is fine by me, obviously. I never asked for you to make it short and sweet. I only asked that you stop playing rhetoric and semantics games. 


> 1)A child doesn't care about your made up distinctions between types of dependence. I repeat for the umpteenth time. If it is not cared for by someone it will die. At best you can perhaps make a distinction between physical RESPONSIBILITY and social RESPONSIBILITY, that I'd buy. But that is a lot different then who and what the child is dependent on. Legally, YOU are responsible for your child until you go through the legal process of relinquishing your guardianship of it, BUT (next point)....


 
And paying someone to insert a vacuum into my uterus for a good thorough cleaning is my means of legally "relinquishing guardianship" of it, even if YOU don't  think that my life needs merit such an action. Tough.



> 2) *You stated NO one is responsible for keeping ANYONE alive. *Therefore you are arguing it really should be your legal right to do absolutely nothing. Again I'm not playing semantics here. When someone says NO responsibility, I assume they mean NO responsibility. It's you women always telling us neanderthals NO indeed does mean NO. So either man up and put some qualifiers with NO or explain why you don't have that responsibility despite what the law says.


 
Nobody is *biologically* responsible for another's survival. That is empirical, and the rest of your response to this is entirely ridiculous, because yes you are arguing semantics, and NO this is not about sociologoical responsibility, the emotional attachment that *you* are placing on pregnancies. When you are not the person who is pregnant, then regardless of your feelings about the contents of the uterus, which is empirically the contents of the woman, it is then HER medical decision to make, not yours, because it is not YOU who has to actually BE pregnant.

You people won't even flinch if a fetus is stillborn.. And do you know how many stillborn fetuses there are every year?? A hell of a LOT. Those are the ones you CAN save. Why are you even on some hole in the wall message board (ok so its a pretty cool one, but still) trying to prevent something from happening to late term fetuses (abortion on demand in the late term) that is as yet unlikely to ever happen in the first place?? Why not put that energy into the fetuses that you subjectively claim are people, by trying to educate pregnant mothers on how to sleep, how to eat right, quitting smoking, etc?? Oh I know why- Could it be because that would not allow you to be assholes, because nobody in their right fucking mind would listen to all your abusive verbage? Gee!


----------



## Anguille (Jan 12, 2010)

Looks like this poll reflects what most Americans want. Women's right to choose abortion.


----------



## Anguille (Jan 12, 2010)

Freedom of choice is the American way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 12, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> Wow, the last ten pages are the same damn shit over again.  JD  you life support argument failed ten pages ago to viability questions as did the breathing without a single shred of evidence to support it.  I HAVE posted support for fetal brain development and all that you have done is misquote and misrepresent what the journals have stated.  All the links you have posted are off the topic and have nothing to do with your actual stance.  It strikes me as funny that you were against abortion up until the point that YOU NEEDED ONE!  THAT IS A CLASSIC EMOTIONAL RESPONSE and speaks to the true intent of that stance.  CONVENIENCE.  That is the issue we are all taking with abortion on demand.  I know people who have used abortion as a means of birth control and that is abhorrent.  You will stand on your right to end another life for the simple fact that it may give you stretch marks!
> 
> 
> > JD
> ...



Oh my God.  Did she really say that?  That's just . . . pathetic.  I'm 41, married, with GRANDCHILDREN, for God's sake, and I still get hit on by men younger than my oldest child.  My sister had four children and was my age when she married her husband.

Like I said before, it's all about the quality of the woman in question.  JD needs to worry less about her figure and more about her character.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> A chairperson and a fetus being one and the same, even in concept, is ludicris!! That was the dictionary's example, to give you a better idea of the concept of what being a person means.
> I have done nothing with the dictionary definiton, besides make fun of you guys for grasping at straws, POSTING a definition which includes "chairperson", "salesperson", etc.. and yet not understanding that while all salespersons and chairpersons are people, not "ONE chairperson, or salesperson, or spokesperson is a fetus. I have asked you to prove me wrong on this, but you cannot, because these facts are just empirical. You can't BEND the truth, when the truth is that my empirical facts outweigh any arguments for potential that your bleeding fucking hearts tell you to fight for.



It is not empircal that a fetus is not, at some point, a person. You admitted as such.  Emprical data comes from science. You admitted (finally) that none of the medical research you posted mentions anything about personhood. STILL all you have is your claim that the first breath is what constitutes personhood. For which you have not provided a shred of evidence, hell you haven't even defined what personhood is. While you were focsuing on chairpeople, salespeople and fetspeople, you conveniantly looked over the first portion of that definition, which is simply HUMAN. Which you agreed a fetus was.



JD_2B said:


> And paying someone to insert a vacuum into my uterus for a good thorough cleaning is my means of legally "relinquishing guardianship" of it, even if YOU don't  think that my life needs merit such an action. Tough.



Stop trying to be obtuse. From a legal sense there is no such thing as gaurdianship prior to birth. There is after. 



JD_2B said:


> Nobody is *biologically* responsible for another's survival. That is empirical, and the rest of your response to this is entirely ridiculous, because yes you are arguing semantics, and NO this is not about sociologoical responsibility, the emotional attachment that *you* are placing on pregnancies. When you are not the person who is pregnant, then regardless of your feelings about the contents of the uterus, which is empirically the contents of the woman, it is then HER medical decision to make, not yours, because it is not YOU who has to actually BE pregnant.



You seem to be using this term in the sense that a fetus is dependent on what the mother does to herself up until birth. You are making that distinction because you believe there to be no concept of bilogical responsibility post birth. You seem to believe that is when bilogical responsbility ends. Not true. It ends when your legal gaurdianship ends. What you do to your body even after the baby is born can most definately have an effect on the baby. A parent can be charged with child neglect if that parent is smoking crack for example. You can't do whatever you want to yourself without repurcussion if you're still the legal gaurdian. Therefore the point still stands.



JD_2B said:


> You people won't even flinch if a fetus is stillborn.. And do you know how many stillborn fetuses there are every year?? A hell of a LOT. Those are the ones you CAN save. Why are you even on some hole in the wall message board (ok so its a pretty cool one, but still) trying to prevent something from happening to late term fetuses (abortion on demand in the late term) that is as yet unlikely to ever happen in the first place?? Why not put that energy into the fetuses that you subjectively claim are people, by trying to educate pregnant mothers on how to sleep, how to eat right, quitting smoking, etc?? Oh I know why-



Why would I flinch at that? You are trying to say dead is dead. Well it isn't. HOW it happened is just as important as that it happened.



JD_2B said:


> Could it be because that would not allow you to be *assholes*, because nobody in their right fucking mind would listen to all your *abusive verbage*? Gee!



Does your hypocrisy never end? I would say I've remained largely civil throughout the course of this debate. You have taken the cake in this thread as far as abusive verbage goes. You might want to go back and take a gander at how many times you've called me an asshole or a moron or some other equally baseless name compared to what I have called you. I have called you one thing and one thing only. Generally I wouldn't even bother pointing it out because it's immature, distracting from anything relevant, and adds nothing to the conversation. But to have the nerve to accuse me of it when it's not true especially when the accuser is the main offender, takes some real balls or a level of obliviousnes I had up to this point not encountered.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 12, 2010)

> LMAO!! You people fucking SUPPORT abortion on demand for convenience reasons for the first trimester, so whatever REASONS you want to play off as inconsequential at THIIS point, is just a whole mess of rhetoric. Furthermore, I never said that I personally would choose to have an abortion for avoiding stretch marks, so your claim that I would do this is out in left field, at best.
> 
> You have not been at all active in the conversation, either, so whatever bullshit you want to try to pull here about my medical journal articles being unrelated to be "breathing makes it a person" stance, is obviously a shot in the fucking dark, as well, clearly made by a blind man who did nothing more than skim through the 35 past pages, at best.


Yes you did say that you support the right to abort for any reason at any time, which includes your right to it.  I never said you would actually do it.  Although I am not so sure that you would not based on the rest of your arguments.

And yes I have been active.  Just because I have not responded to the last two days of drivel does not mean I have not been following it - it is my thread after all.


> You ignorant bastard..


And you accuse others of personal attacks&#8230;   I wonder why you are attacked!  If that was a plant from another thread then simply post it instead of thinking that we are all the great mind readers that you seem to think.


> Does your hypocrisy never end? I would say I've remained largely civil throughout the course of this debate. You have taken the cake in this thread as far as abusive verbage goes. You might want to go back and take a gander at how many times you've called me an asshole or a moron or some other equally baseless name compared to what I have called you. I have called you one thing and one thing only. Generally I wouldn't even bother pointing it out because it's immature, distracting from anything relevant, and adds nothing to the conversation. But to have the nerve to accuse me of it when it's not true especially when the accuser is the main offender, takes some real balls or a level of obliviousnes I had up to this point not encountered.


Don&#8217;t worry bern, she just does not want you to feel left out as she has personally attacked everyone in almost every paragraph that has been typed here.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 12, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Abortion is a done deal right now. There is no way we are going back to the hodgepodge of the 60s.  The best thing is to reduce the need for abortion through education, birth control, free prenatal care, adoption services and low cost child care



*WE HAVE THAT STUFF ALREADY AND HAVE FOR YEARS!!! WHEN WILL WE SEE A REDUCTION IN CHILD EXPLOITATION, MURDER, AND ABORTION, AS PROMISED TO US?*

You guys just ignore the facts, it makes me physically ill. 

You said that if we increased sex ed, it would reduce abortion, illness, stds, child rape, murder, etc. blah blah blah. So we did.

Guess what? None of those things have been reduced! Except possibly the stds if you want to take all-time highs in the 20s. However, kids in those days didn't have STDs. Kids do now, and the rate is rising exponentially.

You said that if we provided education to children and women, free family health clinics, free abortions or low-cost abortions, if we HELPED single women with children so they could pursue their drug habits and slutty ways with income and medical care, rather than taking their fucking children from them and treating them like pariahs for being crappy mothers, you said if we did all that stuff, child abuse would drop dramatically! Mothers would no longer feel burdened by their children and all would be sweetness and light! Because we all know that poor, stupid women will choose to kill their babies in the womb rather than get knocked up and then drag them down into poverty and disease with them. So let's ENCOURAGE them to pursue unhealthy lifestyles! Now that we've got the fix, everyone will be happy!

You were wrong. Abortion never has and never will fix anything. It's a colossal failure. COLOSSAL.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, the last ten pages are the same damn shit over again. JD  you life support argument failed ten pages ago to viability questions as did the breathing without a single shred of evidence to support it. I HAVE posted support for fetal brain development and all that you have done is misquote and misrepresent what the journals have stated. All the links you have posted are off the topic and have nothing to do with your actual stance. It strikes me as funny that you were against abortion up until the point that YOU NEEDED ONE! THAT IS A CLASSIC EMOTIONAL RESPONSE and speaks to the true intent of that stance. CONVENIENCE. That is the issue we are all taking with abortion on demand. I know people who have used abortion as a means of birth control and that is abhorrent. You will stand on your right to end another life for the simple fact that it may give you stretch marks!
> ...


 
I don't understand where MY figure comes into play here, considering my abortion was not decided for the reason to maintain it. 

Again, the fact that you would make your little girl birth a baby, go through all those hours of childbirth pains, and have to spend her formidable years raising a child, and explaining to everyone where dad is, which would absolutely happen, because she would be asked or judged as a whore, either fucking way.. and make her stare into the lookalike eyes of her rapists child every day.. AND take care of it, all to spare *your* fucking emotional fragility???? Or the wrath of you will follow???? 
Sorry hon, but nobody is that generous!!!! Good grief!!!


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 12, 2010)

What makes you think child birth is more painful than an abortion?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is a done deal right now. There is no way we are going back to the hodgepodge of the 60s. The best thing is to reduce the need for abortion through education, birth control, free prenatal care, adoption services and low cost child care
> ...


not really.. "rising exponentially" means that the country has seen a massive increase in the murder or abortion rate, illness, etc. 
Last I checked, the DOJ said that the number of people murdered has gone down significantly. The number of abortions went up under the Bush administration, and back down under Obama. Fluctuations can be expected though, in general- but it is silly to attribute all of these things happening to abortion being legal. 
Also, it might be surmised that with the advances in technology enabling pepople to have telephone (cell phone) services wherwever they go, then the amount of reporting would also go up, as well. It stands to reason, also, that the more awareness is spread about a certain issue, by television and radio commercials, billboards, etc, then more people will report it. From that, a logical person can also infer that the rate of child abuse and such has not necessarily gone UP, but the rate of reported abuse has increased as a result of our modern advances in communication, making awareness and reporting anonymously easy. 




> You said that if we provided education to children and women, free family health clinics, free abortions or low-cost abortions, if we HELPED single women with children so they could pursue their drug habits and slutty ways with income and medical care, rather than taking their fucking children from them and treating them like pariahs for being crappy mothers, you said if we did all that stuff, child abuse would drop dramatically! Mothers would no longer feel burdened by their children and all would be sweetness and light! Because we all know that poor, stupid women will choose to kill their babies in the womb rather than get knocked up and then drag them down into poverty and disease with them. So let's ENCOURAGE them to pursue unhealthy lifestyles! Now that we've got the fix, everyone will be happy!


 
Wow.. since when does every woman on welofare abuse their kids?? 

You live in fantasy land, mama.



> You were wrong. Abortion never has and never will fix anything. It's a colossal failure. COLOSSAL.


 
And in that fantasy land, you wholly blame legalized abortion on the increase in child abuse awareness??? WTF???


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What makes you think child birth is more painful than an abortion?


 
I have done both. =)

Actually, My abortion lasted all of five minutes, so even if I hadn't asked them for the sleeping shot, a couple minutes into the procedure (it did hurt a bit) it still would have only lasted a few minutes. 

Natural childbirth, the first time around, tends to take anywhere in the 9-12 hour range, for the painful parts, anyways. Plus, one has to push out a whole head. "Something the size of a watermelon, out of something the size of a lemon", to quote Kristy Alley in "Look Whos Talking".  

After having my boy, I had to squirt water on my privates when I peed because I was swollen and the acid in the pee hurt me so much. The doctors said I looked like I didnt even have a baby, but my shit was tore up, at least enough to make urination burn like hell, for three weeks. I had to use those little witch hazel pads, "Tucks", down there, too, just to walk somewhat normally. All this is not counting the confusing emotions that people experience when they have a baby. Many people do not initially react like "Oh my baby! This is a miracle!!", but instead, they are scared, and intimidated, smiling, just for the sake of pictures or other people in the room. Then people end up with post partum depression, mildly, all because they feel like they did not react the way the ladies in the movies do. Then there is that whole thing about breastfeeding, and having engorged, leaky breasts, and that does not include the actual act of nursing, which can be painful for some people. For most people, it feels really good, and even satisfying for the mother. These mothers might even feel like pervs for feeling happy or looking forward to the sensations involved with nursing. Some people might actually call them perverts for enjoying nursing, even though this enjoyability of nursing is mother nature's way of making sure you keep doing it, and nurturing the baby. 
That doesn't even include the back and neck troubles especially for a younger woman, who is not fully developed, or anyone, really, caused by carrying the baby around, having to sit a certain way holding the bottle or nursing, etc.. This causes pain for the dads also. Then don't forget the lack of sleep involved...  less sleep = more tired = lowered immune system quality= the ability to get sick and pass infection around to the whole family. 

Thats about it, in a nutshell.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

Oh, also- one in 100 women die during childbirth, compared with one in a million having abortions. I think that dying must be rather painful, as well. =)


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 12, 2010)

Ass numbers.

Because your single experience was a gentler, kinder experience w/abortion than most, don't think that is the "usual".


----------



## Dr Grump (Jan 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Ass numbers.
> 
> Because your single experience was a gentler, kinder experience w/abortion than most, don't think that is the "usual".



You had an abortion?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 12, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > A chairperson and a fetus being one and the same, even in concept, is ludicris!! That was the dictionary's example, to give you a better idea of the concept of what being a person means.
> ...


 
If that were true, you and your ilk would not be screaming about crackheads, personal responsibility, welfare moms, and all that. There would also be just as many posts on this discussion forum regarding the poor stillborn fetuses and how their mothers should be imprisoned because they made some dumb mistake, or even because their bodies was not good enough to bear a child, and that was known to them ahead of time..

As of yet, I have only seen posts demonizing women who abort, belittling their parenting skills, and blaming legalized abortion on a bunch of OTHER shit that is entirely made up, especially a "rising murder rate"... 

It is not about anything but hating on women for making their own bodily decisions, and you know it. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Could it be because that would not allow you to be *assholes*, because nobody in their right fucking mind would listen to all your *abusive verbage*? Gee!
> ...


 
YOU have, but your little friends have not, and you have done nothing to speak against this behavior. If you want me to believe that you give a shit about any womans well being, then it would behoove you to stop turning your little cheek to your ilk's bad behavior towards me, as all that does is say that you could care less what they say or do, even in real life (like the threatening message regarding posting my picture so that I can be identified and hurt, for instance, not to mention all the rest) and all I am doing is posting my opinions and a bunch of facts here. Verbal abuse and physical threats do not belong in any debate, much less on a freaking  internet message board. I am not blaming you for their behavior, but since you all seem to share the same overall opinions of me as a person, based on my opinion that women should have the right to make medical decisions right up to the last month of pregnancy, which is NOT a personal opinion, but a legal one, in the first place. I have repeated that many times, as well. It is not my fault that you all want to make it personal, ok!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 12, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You and I agree that *a fetus is not a person*, at SOME point in gestation- I admit that the "some point" includes all of gestation, and you want to pinpoint a certain time frame for it, to say when it is, based on the presence of anatomical structures. The studies I gave you prove that there is no need to worry about sentience or anything prior to birth, so why you keep yammering on about this, is really dsisturbing, but the hysterics are quite cute.
> 
> My data is far better than your non existent data, as well as the data that pro posted, which also supports my position, with the exception of some stupid right to life group's paper, and one study from 1992 which was antiquated by a new study which showed that the original "results" were complete horseshit. Get fucking real.



I guess part of the problem would be a completely innaccurate representation of what I believe and why I belive. One more time; I believe a *fetus IS a person at some point during pregnancy*.  The reason I believe that has little to do with the child's anotomy. I believe that because it is illogical to believe that all the things that make someone a person, concepts that are far greater than the mere act of drawing air, all come togother at that precise moment to make what was once not a person a split second ago now a person.

You stated that empircal data supports your position of when personhood begins. Well, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It can't because nothing you posted begins to broach the subject of personhood. Your data can't be better at something it doesn't do in the first place. And you now you want to resort the truly desperate justification that something posted (regardless of whether it has anything to do with your contention) is better than nothing. If you want to talk about personhood you have to post something that talks about that subject. You posted a bunch of stuff about lung development hoping we would buy your arbitrary position that a first breath is what equals personhood. Yet you can't seem to tell us why with any reasonable rationale other than JD says so. 



JD_2B said:


> Oh for Gods sake. Yes, lets add in shit like that, because the baby being in the same room as a crackhead is some kind of biological dependence it has, and there is absolutely nothing sociological that can correct this need to be right next to crackhead mom, because



I'm sorry that it was something you didn't think about in your mad scramble to make up another excuse. But hey, you defined the terms dear. I'm just working within them. Biological dependence does not end until legal gaursianship ends. Meanwhile you are trying to contrive all these ways in which the dependency of the child and responsibility of the parent change from pre-birth to post. The fact is very little changes. Basic needs still must be met. They are simply met in different ways. It is dependent on you bioliogically in the womb just as well as out. Inside or outside as long as you are the legal guardian, the survival of that life depends on you not fucking yourself up. 

What you have skirted around with this particular contrivance is your falsehood that no one is responsible for keeping anyone alive. Instead of manning up when called on it, you make the excuse 'oh well I meant biologically'. Either way it simply isn't true. As the legal gaurdian you have the responsibility to care for it AND yourself. The reason for that is the infant still has a very high level of dependence on the outside world for its basic needs. The responsibility for providing for those needs is the legal gaurdian. Given that dependance, what you do to yourself as the child's legal gaurdian will have a direct effect on whether it's needs are met or not.       





JD_2B said:


> YOU have, but your little friends have not, and you have done nothing to speak against this behavior. If you want me to believe that you give a shit about any womans well being, then it would behoove you to stop turning your little cheek to your ilk's bad behavior towards me, as all that does is say that you could care less what they say or do, even in real life (like the threatening message regarding posting my picture so that I can be identified and hurt, for instance, not to mention all the rest) and all I am doing is posting my opinions and a bunch of facts here. Verbal abuse and physical threats do not belong in any debate, much less on a freaking  internet message board. I am not blaming you for their behavior, but since you all seem to share the same overall opinions of me as a person, based on my opinion that women should have the right to make medical decisions right up to the last month of pregnancy, which is NOT a personal opinion, but a legal one, in the first place. I have repeated that many times, as well. It is not my fault that you all want to make it personal, ok!!



Stop making excuses for your behavior. It's just more evidence you're a liberal, not a libertarian. An amazing inability to admit the fallacies you have presented throughout this debate up and an excuse for everything. You are NEVER to blame. You have no responsibilities.  I don't call Pro or Cecille out because they are not 'my ilk'. We aren't a team. The worst I can say about them is that they use argumentation tactics that I probably would not. I am having a conversation with you. period. Verbal abuse and physical threats don't belong in a debate, you are correct. So why is it you're the main offender of verbal abuse?



JD_2B said:


> you fucking twit


----------



## rightwinger (Jan 12, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Abortion is a done deal right now. There is no way we are going back to the hodgepodge of the 60s.  The best thing is to reduce the need for abortion through education, birth control, free prenatal care, adoption services and low cost child care
> ...



Abortion rates are down.

What is your option?  Restrict access to birth control, withold child support, force women to pay for doctors, medications and give her no options

Force her to have an abortion


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 13, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Oh, also- one in 100 women die during childbirth, compared with one in a million having abortions. I think that dying must be rather painful, as well. =)



Another completly made up statistic from JD.  
Maternal Mortality Ratio Adjusted > Women statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

17 in 100,000 die from child birthing.  The rate is lower for abortions though, about 1 in 100,000 but still much higher than 1 in a million.

PS- USA is 134 on the list in case you were wondering.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 13, 2010)

Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...

RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast. 

BLUE is for the repetitive personalizing of the discussion points I make, as feeble attempts to somehow make your own vague arguments somehow logical and discernable, by using strawman argumentation ad nauseum, as well as bullshit ad hominems, thinly veiled, to somehow create the argument of choice being my personality, etc, to make my actual arguments less valuable to the discussion.

Epic fail. Both of ya.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 13, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You and I agree that *a fetus is not a person*, at SOME point in gestation- I admit that the "some point" includes all of gestation, and you want to pinpoint a certain time frame for it, to say when it is, based on the presence of anatomical structures. The studies I gave you prove that there is no need to worry about sentience or anything prior to birth, so why you keep yammering on about this, is really dsisturbing, but the hysterics are quite cute.
> ...



No comment, lol.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 13, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, also- one in 100 women die during childbirth, compared with one in a million having abortions. I think that dying must be rather painful, as well. =)
> ...



My apologies. I did not intentionally make it up. I used a graph chart from memory, and "saw" a 1 in 100 in my head. =)

PS- if women are 17X more likely to die from childbirth, than from abortions, then I see no reason to not support this. =) Thanks for the stats. You really are very good at supporting my overall points.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 13, 2010)

Pretty pathetic when you can't even follow your own chicken shit excuse to not actually reply. 

I guess part of the problem would be a completely innaccurate representation of what I believe and why I belive.

This is a simple statement of fact. It can not be characterized as an attack. You stated what I believe. What you stated was not correct in terms of what I believe. Either you didn't read it correctly or your being obtuse again. I have always maintained, which you acknowledged, that I believe the concepts that make one a person occur sometime before birth. You stated my belief is otherwise. Your excuse doesn't fly here.

One more time; I believe a *fetus IS a person at some point during pregnancy*.  The reason I believe that has little to do with the child's anotomy. I believe that because it is illogical to believe that all the things that make someone a person, concepts that are far greater than the mere act of drawing air, all come togother at that precise moment to make what was once not a person a split second ago now a person.

This directly responds actually to YOUR UNSUPPORTED definition of personhood. You have yet to provide empirical, logical evidence as to why a first breath is the beginning of personhood. 

You stated that empircal data supports your position of when personhood begins. Well, I'm sorry, no it doesn't. It can't because nothing you posted begins to broach the subject of personhood. Your data can't be better at something it doesn't do in the first place. And you now you want to resort the truly desperate justification that something posted (regardless of whether it has anything to do with your contention) is better than nothing. If you want to talk about personhood you have to post something that talks about that subject. You posted a bunch of stuff about lung development hoping we would buy your arbitrary position that a first breath is what equals personhood. Yet you can't seem to tell us why with any reasonable rationale other than JD says so. 

Again the above is not an attack or a personalization. Again it is a simple statement of fact. The medical journals you posted simply do not support what you claim they do. To be unwilling to admit to such an obvious fact is telling. 

I'm sorry that it was something you didn't think about in your mad scramble to make up another excuse. But hey, you defined the terms dear. I'm just working within them. 

Did you not bring up biological dependence? You agreed that this term means a childs survival is dependent on the condition of, and the choices a woman makes with regard to here body. I understand that you don't WANT that to apply post birth. The reality is, is that while you are the legal gaurdian, it does.

Biological dependence does not end until legal gaursianship ends. 

Simple statement of fact, as per above.

Meanwhile you are trying to contrive all these ways in which the dependency of the child and responsibility of the parent change from pre-birth to post. The fact is very little changes. Basic needs still must be met. They are simply met in different ways. It is dependent on you bioliogically in the womb just as well as out. Inside or outside as long as you are the legal guardian, the survival of that life depends on you not fucking yourself up. 

What you have skirted around with this particular contrivance is your falsehood that no one is responsible for keeping anyone alive. Instead of manning up when called on it, you make the excuse 'oh well I meant biologically'. Either way it simply isn't true. 

Nothing more than a simple observation. Instead of taking the opportunity to modify the term since obviously it doesn't fit the defintion, you essentially accuse others of being stupid for not being able to read your mind.

As the legal gaurdian you have the responsibility to care for it AND yourself. The reason for that is the infant still has a very high level of dependence on the outside world for its basic needs. The responsibility for providing for those needs is the legal gaurdian. Given that dependance, what you do to yourself as the child's legal gaurdian will have a direct effect on whether it's needs are met or not.       

All simple statements of fact again. 


Stop making excuses for your behavior. It's just more evidence you're a liberal, not a libertarian. An amazing inability to admit the fallacies you have presented throughout this debate up and an excuse for everything. You are NEVER to blame. You have no responsibilities.  I don't call Pro or Cecille out because they are not 'my ilk'. We aren't a team. The worst I can say about them is that they use argumentation tactics that I probably would not. I am having a conversation with you. period. Verbal abuse and physical threats don't belong in a debate, you are correct. So why is it you're the main offender of verbal abuse?

Again a simple statement of fact. You are a projector. It's a fact that anyone with two eyes who looks at this thread will see. You accuse others, most often falsely, of things you are guilty of, often times even more so than the person you are accusing. No place was that more blatantly true then your accusation of verbal abuse. All anyone has to do is go though this thread and count the number of times you have ended a sentence in useless name calling vs. the times I have done that. Turn your color coding on yourself. I would be surprised if you have the integrity to do so. 





> No comment, lol.




I understand how difficult it is to admit to someone that you're wrong. Especially when you have spent a good portion of a conversation condescening and belittlling that someone.  I stated my goal is the truth. Yours clearly is not. Your goal is rationalizing a belief. Had you provided overwhelming evidence that your views are the right views, that they are TRUTH. I would have definately explored that. When I state what I believe it's because that is what I believe to be truth at that point until something comes along that shows me I'm wrong. For people like me who like debate for debates sake, people like you who can't be introspective, who aren't open minded, who aren't objective, are really disappointing. Lastly I told you no amount of name calling can compare to the harshness of the truth.

So show me I'm wrong when I call you a hypocrite. Because anyone who can be truly objective will see this thread, what you accuse people of and what you exemplify yourself and know it's the truth.

Show me I'm wrong when I say you lack integrity. Because anyone who sees this post and the one preceeding will see the truth that the things you highlighted don't fit the defintions you contrived for doing so and the mere act of it is nothing more than a cop out. 

Show me I'm wrong when I call you on your claim of being objective. Because anyone who looks at this thread and sees the way you converse, is going to see that simply isn't the truth. 

I really don't need you to admit to any of this. I don't need your validation of my opinion. I don't even want it. As an objective person I would be forced to call the credibility of such an endoresement into quesiton based solely on how you have conducted yourself here.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 14, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, also- one in 100 women die during childbirth, compared with one in a million having abortions. I think that dying must be rather painful, as well. =)
> ...



According to the most recent CDCP Morbidity and Mortality Report I can find, the maternal mortality rate is 7.5 per 100,000 live births.

Also, both these numbers are problematic, because neither breaks it down by type.  In other words, these numbers include any sort of maternal mortality, including abortion-related deaths.  They don't specify deaths due to actual childbirth complications.

Third, to quote the Journal for the American Medical Association, "Complications following abortions performed in free-standing clinics is one of the most frequent gynecologic emergencies . . . encountered. Even life-endangering complications rarely come to the attention of the physician who performed the abortion unless the incident entails litigation. The statistics presented . . . represent substantial under-reporting and disregard womens reluctance to return to a clinic, where, in their mind, they received inadequate treatment."  In other words, women developing complications from an abortion most likely do so after having left the clinic, and they don't go back to that clinic for treatment.  They go to an ER, which doesn't necessarily report the death as being related to an abortion.

It is a stone fact that, for various reasons, deaths related to abortion go egregiously underreported.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 14, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...
> 
> RED is for the lack of an argument to support your own position. Vagueness gets you nowhere fast.
> 
> ...



I think it's adorable that JD is trying so hard to sound like me and adopt my speech patterns.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Now if we could just teach her to fake rational thought, she might pass for human.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 14, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Highlighting the reasons I am not responding to your posts, you lame brains...
> ...


 
Actually, I piggybacked "Epic Fail" from someone else, some guy, actually, right around the time I first joined the site, lol.. I guess it is a spin from World of Warcraft or something.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jan 14, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...





> cecilie
> According to the most recent CDCP Morbidity and Mortality Report I can find, the maternal mortality rate is 7.5 per 100,000 live births.
> 
> Also, both these numbers are problematic, because neither breaks it down by type. In other words, these numbers include any sort of maternal mortality, including abortion-related deaths. They don't specify deaths due to actual childbirth complications.
> ...


Honestly it does not matter ether way.  A death rate of .017 percent is too small to figure as you are more likely to die on the trip to the hospital than from the birth.  That is what those statistics say, it is a negligible amount.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 15, 2010)

That makes sense, Fa_Q2..  Also, it would be impossible to determine how many ER deaths or mortality rates were abortion related in countries where abortion is illegal, however I would venture a guess that they are far higher than what we see here in the US, where it is legal, and as safe as is humanly possible. Also, the women presented by the American Medical Association who came in from post abortion complications did not necessarily die. I am sure that the abortion itself is highly under reported, because people do not want to have less than adequate care caused by a bias (if even a subconscious one) of the caregiver. With this consideration in mind, it also would probably make only a slight difference in quality of care, if everyone did report a recent abortion.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 15, 2010)

Furthermore, the reason for this US only statistic being so low, is because it is not adjusted as a worldwide figure, for the average number of maternal deaths due to childbirth. 
If there was a catastrophic worldwide event, we would probably have to revert to a number closer to around 1000-2000 deaths per 100,000, equaling out to one to two deaths per hundred. Considering that I know my blood being left out for a couple of weeks will make me enough penicillin to combat any potential infections from an amateur abortion, or extraction of a severely injured fetus (say dead fetus, fuck it) then my abortion death rate would possibly be lower than that number. If eventually, we found the technique to make penicillin in bulk yet again, then it would only go back to a lower mortality rate for some, "some" being a matter of who has access to that penicillin, which is commonly used in life threatening complications. The complications tend to be infection rather than injury. 

Anyways.. We are way off track here, but it was fun debating with y'all, more or less. Thanks for the banter.. =)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 17, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> That makes sense, Fa_Q2..  Also, it would be impossible to determine how many ER deaths or mortality rates were abortion related in countries where abortion is illegal, however I would venture a guess that they are far higher than what we see here in the US, where it is legal, and as safe as is humanly possible. Also, the women presented by the American Medical Association who came in from post abortion complications did not necessarily die. I am sure that the abortion itself is highly under reported, because people do not want to have less than adequate care caused by a bias (if even a subconscious one) of the caregiver. With this consideration in mind, it also would probably make only a slight difference in quality of care, if everyone did report a recent abortion.



And none of THAT is your own bias and deep-seated guilt projected large upon the world around you.  Goodness, no.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 17, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Furthermore, the reason for this US only statistic being so low, is because it is not adjusted as a worldwide figure, for the average number of maternal deaths due to childbirth.
> If there was a catastrophic worldwide event, we would probably have to revert to a number closer to around 1000-2000 deaths per 100,000, equaling out to one to two deaths per hundred. Considering that I know my blood being left out for a couple of weeks will make me enough penicillin to combat any potential infections from an amateur abortion, or extraction of a severely injured fetus (say dead fetus, fuck it) then my abortion death rate would possibly be lower than that number. If eventually, we found the technique to make penicillin in bulk yet again, then it would only go back to a lower mortality rate for some, "some" being a matter of who has access to that penicillin, which is commonly used in life threatening complications. The complications tend to be infection rather than injury.
> 
> Anyways.. We are way off track here, but it was fun debating with y'all, more or less. Thanks for the banter.. =)



"Off-track" in the sense that that made no coherent, linear sense whatsoever.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 18, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > That makes sense, Fa_Q2.. Also, it would be impossible to determine how many ER deaths or mortality rates were abortion related in countries where abortion is illegal, however I would venture a guess that they are far higher than what we see here in the US, where it is legal, and as safe as is humanly possible. Also, the women presented by the American Medical Association who came in from post abortion complications did not necessarily die. I am sure that the abortion itself is highly under reported, because people do not want to have less than adequate care caused by a bias (if even a subconscious one) of the caregiver. With this consideration in mind, it also would probably make only a slight difference in quality of care, if everyone did report a recent abortion.
> ...


 
You are projecting, Cecile. 

A pregnant teen is in a lose lose situation, with bitches like you. If she so much as gewts pregnant, you will be a **** and tell her she is a whore, and worthless, etc. If she takes responsibility for her actions and aborts, you will be an even bigger **** and call her worse names. 

Bottom line- A **** is a fucking ****.. LOL!!!


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 18, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I agree I always find the arguments weak when someone insists on a teenager having a baby. If she decides to that should be her decision with (or even without) consultation with her family. 

Abortion is not about the good vs the bad. Rather its about the less of 2 evils. Abortion of a teenage fetus in 95% of the cases is by far the less of the 2 evils.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Actually it is JD as usual attributing postions to people they don't have. Pretending that those of us who would like limitations to certain types of abortions are some sort of pregnant teenager hating monsters is a strawman (another concept JD needs to lookup considering the amount of times she has accused people of it), as is the notion that those of us with said position demand that all pregnant teens carry their pregnancies to term is pretty dishonest. The teenage brain is not developed enough for a teen to effectively grasp the consequences of what they do. Pretty hard to hold some deep seeded contempt for pregnant teens over that. 

All that I anyway have ever contended is that the best decision be made for ALL parties involved. If done within a reasonable amount of time, that most certainly could include getting an abortion.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 18, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



You still have to account for a teen's lack of full maturity and inability to provide for a family.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 18, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Um, no, I don't tell women they're worthless whores for getting pregnant, particularly not if they take responsibility for their actions.  However, if they selfishly kill an innocent baby for their own convenience and then have the utter, narcissistic gall to sit around telling me how proud they are of believing that they are the only person who matters, then I definitely tell them that they are worthless whores, because they are.  And if you can't handle that, too freaking bad.  I'll take my non-baby-killing bitchiness over your "I need the freedom to fuck any drunk loser I pick up in a bar" bitchiness any day of the week, especially if we're talking about setting an example for teenagers.  If nothing else, I don't have to turn an Internet message board into my own personal group therapy session in order to justify my past to myself.



JD_2B said:


> Bottom line- A **** is a fucking ****.. LOL!!!



You shouldn't be so hard on yourself . . . because I'll be happy to do it for you.  It's nice to know you can finally admit your role in the world, though.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 18, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



I'm sure that there are many adopted children in the world who would be surprised by your opinion that death is preferable to adoption.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 18, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



That might be true, but an aborted fetus in the 1st term wouldn't know any better now would it? I am sure every sperm and egg would like to be a real person, but sometimes that is just life.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 18, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion.  Biology 101.

I find your attitude of "killing someone is okay, because once they're dead, they don't know the difference" to be intriguing, to say the least.  However, in the context of putatively responding to my post, it's irrelevant and non-responsive.  You appear to feel that death is better than adoption.  I pointed out that real, living people who were adopted would be very surprised by that opinion.  I didn't say anything about what fetuses, aborted or not, might think.  

The more you dodge and run down tangents, the more guilty you're going to appear.  I don't care, but you might.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 18, 2010)

Actually, the attitude is "if they can't speak up for themselves, we don't give a rat's ass what they think about it."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 18, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, the attitude is "if they can't speak up for themselves, we don't give a rat's ass what they think about it."



Most likely.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 18, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...




Oh, for God's sake, Cecile was the one who was whining about the teenage pregnancy rates, the murder rates, blah blah blah, as if anything she says has any semblance of truth TO it, anyways. I was talking to her, not you. But hey, go ahead and jump on the suicidal bandwagon of tossing ridiculous insults my way for no reason again- What do I care?? LOL!!


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 18, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You stupid little dimbulb, You have said in other forums on here (in not so many words, but as a whole) that you would go to such lengths as to hurt your own children, if they chose to take the responsibility for the condition they had imposed on them and aborted. You clearly think that having an abortion is irresponsible, and that anyone who chooses to abort must be a whore who fucked some drunk loser or a whole plethora of them to get that way. It is, in your retarded little pea brain, entirely impossible for someone to be IN A RELATIONSHIP and have sex, and get pregnant and SIMPLY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NOT READY FOR KIDS, YOU SHRIVELED UP OLD CUNTWRINKLE. 

IF I gave a shit what some psychotic person like yourself thought of MY abortion, why the fuck would I put MY picture on the board, for you to be forced to SHOW your regal cuntliness by saying all of these preposterous things to me while looking me directly in the eyes. You are one sick bitch, that's for sure. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line- A **** is a fucking ****.. LOL!!!
> ...



Justify your own desires to hurt your children over your own pathological desires to kill all who dare to disagree with you, you fucking ****. Again, I do not care, lol


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 18, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, the attitude is "if they can't speak up for themselves, we don't give a rat's ass what they think about it."



Prove that they can think...  Guess what? They CANT. And the only websites or "studies" on this shit that you people will ever find are on religion and pro life sites that are designed to feed false propaganda to people like you. 

Science has come so far as to prove that fetuses do not need anesthesia, as they do not feel pain, and this is PROVEN. There is NO reason to believe that they can THINK.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Prove that they can think...  Guess what? They CANT. And the only websites or "studies" on this shit that you people will ever find are on religion and pro life sites that are designed to feed false propaganda to people like you.
> 
> Science has come so far as to prove that fetuses do not need anesthesia, as they do not feel pain, and this is PROVEN. There is NO reason to believe that they can THINK.



You're still dancing around your argument. If science has come so far as you say it has it should not be difficult for you tell us what happens biologically when the child takes it's first breath that transforms it from a fetus to a person in an instant.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



I told you the truth hurts more than anything. The FACT is you consistantly use terms incorrectly and make up definitions for them as you go along. By any objective observation you are a hypocrite. You have accussed me and others of straw man arguments several times, with out actually showing where or how I intentionally misrepresented your opinion. Then have the balls to resort to making straw man arguments yourself.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 18, 2010)

*ABORTION* is *LEGAL.* I have invested money in *Henry Mogentaller Abortion Clinics of Canada* and I have made thousands upon thousands of dollars. 

*ABORTION ON DEMAND * is the right of every woman and every time unwanted, parasitic, fetal tissue is extracted from a womans body in Canada I make *MONEY !*


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2010)

Yukon said:


> *ABORTION* is *LEGAL.* I have invested money in *Henry Mogentaller Abortion Clinics of Canada* and I have made thousands upon thousands of dollars.
> 
> *ABORTION ON DEMAND * is the right of every woman and every time unwanted, parasitic, fetal tissue is extracted from a womans body in Canada I make *MONEY !*



The above along with signature are only true if one considers there to be some major difference between a child moments before birth to moments after. So far no one has been able to provide anything compelling that this is so. 

That being the case, while it may be legal, that doesn't make ir right. As i explained earlier, slavery was once legal too. Justifying something on the basis of whether it is legal or not is a pretty weak argument.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 18, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Prove that they can think...  Guess what? They CANT. And the only websites or "studies" on this shit that you people will ever find are on religion and pro life sites that are designed to feed false propaganda to people like you.
> ...



Here's how it works.. I am about to give you a few examples of what I am saying, in hopes you will pick up the concept.

A restaurant is built. The ovens are on, the stoves are burning, the refrigerator is going, and yet, no food is being served, no patrons are dining, etc, etc. 
Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE. Before this moment, it was merely a functional work in the making. Anything could have destroyed it from coming to that moment. In hurricane Katrina, don't you think that there might have been one company that was going to be ready to open its doors for the first time, to the public, and whoosh, all of that work and effort and diligence came to a screeching halt in a manner of hours. 

There is nothing else that happens between the duration of time when the business is being built and formed and created, and the time it actually becomes ALIVE, by doing actual business, besides the act of opening the front doors and saying Welcome. 

I cannot describe any better than this the difference between a fetus and a baby who takes a breath. All I can give you is this analogy, and hope that you can understand the concept that there is ALWAYS a solitary act of immense strength, generosity, and acceptance for something to truly become alive. It is divine and beautiful and not the kind of thing that can be attributed to a fetus, which can "die" because the woman was chopped in two or blown to bits by an accident with a fuel truck on the way to the hospital. If it was a baby, a person, it could be covered with something, or saved by something, some freaky weird occurance that many people chalk up to being a miracle, even if it's mother died. 

Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks. Just because it has eyes, doesnt mean it sees. Just because it has ears, doesn't mean it hears. Just because it CAN be independent, doesn't mean it IS. 

A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath. 

Again, if you ever got pregnant and did not want to have an abortion- I would not sit here trying to talk you into it. Just because I believe this does not mean that you have to also. I simply ask that my beliefs are respected as well, and I really do not find that happening here on this forum. 

Also, I am sick and damned tired of you "coming back" with some ridiculous "Oh you havent explained your case well enough." or some such thing. You Bern, have not listed a single medical journal to support your own claims, and all you have fucking done is try to SAY that based on your own personal and clearly subjective opinions, mine, and my medical journal research is "too difficult to understand" so you just brush it all off and constantly ask the same fucking questions over and fucking over, like a broken record. No, man- I am NOT going to spend the rest of MY life explaining and reexplaining this to you, just because you are to thick to fucking GET it. When you come back with something worth debating, and stop attacking my posts, probably out of a giddy trollish jolly you get from all of this, then I will talk again. Till then buzz off.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> A restaurant is built. The ovens are on, the stoves are burning, the refrigerator is going, and yet, no food is being served, no patrons are dining, etc, etc.
> Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE. Before this moment, it was merely a functional work in the making. Anything could have destroyed it from coming to that moment. In hurricane Katrina, don't you think that there might have been one company that was going to be ready to open its doors for the first time, to the public, and whoosh, all of that work and effort and diligence came to a screeching halt in a manner of hours.
> 
> There is nothing else that happens between the duration of time when the business is being built and formed and created, and the time it actually becomes ALIVE, by doing actual business, besides the act of opening the front doors and saying Welcome.
> ...



Your analogy is what is subjective you are trying to corelate to what you are now calling an act of divine intervention I guess. I understand perfectly that that is how it think it works. The problem is it just isn't any evidence that is so. It is divine now? This the JD argument of the moment? You accept God's will at that point, but not second prior? And I am the subjective one?




JD_2B said:


> Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks. Just because it has eyes, doesnt mean it sees. Just because it has ears, doesn't mean it hears. Just because it CAN be independent, doesn't mean it IS.
> 
> A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath.



I never argued the having those biological traits are what constitute personhood. THAT is a straw man argument.





JD_2B said:


> Also, I am sick and damned tired of you "coming back" with some ridiculous "Oh you havent explained your case well enough." or some such thing. You Bern, have not listed a single medical journal to support your own claims, and all you have fucking done is try to SAY that based on your own personal and clearly subjective opinions, mine, and my medical journal research is "too difficult to understand" so you just brush it all off and constantly ask the same fucking questions over and fucking over, like a broken record. No, man- I am NOT going to spend the rest of MY life explaining and reexplaining this to you, just because you are to thick to fucking GET it. When you come back with something worth debating, and stop attacking my posts, probably out of a giddy trollish jolly you get from all of this, then I will talk again. Till then buzz off.



And I don't know how much more clearly it can be made for you. THE MEDICAL RESEARCH YOU POSTED DOES *NOTHING* FOR YOUR ARGUMENT. IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO YOUR ARGUMENT OF PERSONHOOD  WHATSOEVER. SO FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP TRYING TO PRETEND IT HELPS YOUR POSITION.

I understand there are certain truths you don't accept. Fortunately for me that does not make them any less true. For example the truth is, like it or not, I don't have to prove my position to be right. All I have to do is prove yours wrong. That is getting easier by the moment since as far as i can tell now you are arguing that personhood requires divine intervention. Which unfortunately is impossible to know, making YOUR position the entirely subjective one.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



What do you expect from a woman who thinks it's more important that she not get stretch marks than that a human should live so that she can keep getting those awesome guys she likes- the ones who use her for her pussy and beat her (as she stated in a mysteriously vanishing post, she's been with several of them).


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Just because something CAN does not mean it DOES. There is a moment of magic when a business cuts the tape and lets in customers for the first time. Suddenly, it becomes ALIVE.



How do you manage to keep out-stupiding yourself?


> Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks.



Just look at you 


> A fetus simply =/= a newborn, and the only thing separating the two is the one thing you cannot accept.. The breath.



Fetal breathing movements and other tests of fetal wellbeing: a comparative evaluation.

Sounds like fetuses 'breath' the neonatal fluid.

Let me google that for you


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



Shockingly (well, shocking to people with no moral compass, anyway), I don't consider the solution to teen pregnancy to be converting them to baby killers.  Dead babies are not EVER the solution to any problem.  It stuns me that I even have to utter that sentence, rather than living in a society where dead babies are just ruled out as a matter of course.

Oh, and you're mistaken about there being no reason why so many people are insulting you.  YOU are the reason.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Given that you felt the need to tell the entire Internet how you screw around with abusive losers, killed your own baby because he had the gall to show up at a time that was not convenient to you, and have only allowed your other child to live because his timing is better, but are apparently subjecting him to ANOTHER abusive loser that you happen to be bumping uglies with, I think it's clear to everyone sane which one of us is most literally a "fucking ****".  

But by all means, continue to think badly of me, because I would never, EVER want something like you to approve of me.  You are the textbook definition of "example of what not to do".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the attitude is "if they can't speak up for themselves, we don't give a rat's ass what they think about it."
> ...



We don't have to prove that they think.  After all, you've proven that you CAN'T, but I assume you still think we should view your worthless, loser-humping life as worth something.

Face it, honey, "the right to screw worthless bastards" isn't exactly the Bill of Rights when it comes to getting people enthused.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 19, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1918264 said:
			
		

> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



But hey, if it wasn't for "women" like JD, Yukon would have to settle for inflatable dates ALL the time.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 19, 2010)

JD,

My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.


----------



## GHook93 (Jan 19, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion.  Biology 101.


Sperm and eggs are "alive" no? Sperm does have instinct to find the egg!



Cecilie1200 said:


> I find your attitude of "killing someone is okay, because once they're dead, they don't know the difference" to be intriguing, to say the least.


That is twisting what I said. I am a firm support of abortion in the 1st term! The second term only in the special circumstances (rape, incest or mother's life is in danger). And only in the 3rd term under the rarest circumstances (mother's life is in danger or a genetic defect is discovered). 

See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are. My opinion is I don't consider a fetus in as a person (in the first trimester) in the same sense you do, so I don't see it as murder. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> However, in the context of putatively responding to my post, it's irrelevant and non-responsive.  You appear to feel that death is better than adoption.


No rather, I feel its best to allow a women to choose freely (during the first trimester and limit it as the pregnancy goes on).

I have 3 kids myself and never thought about abortion. Nevertheless, I still think its a right people should have. 



Cecilie1200 said:


> I pointed out that real, living people who were adopted would be very surprised by that opinion.  I didn't say anything about what fetuses, aborted or not, might think.


I have a few cousins who have been adopted and they are firm (to my dismay) liberal Democrats. They support abortion. So go figure.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 19, 2010)

Yukon said:


> JD,
> 
> My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.


 
Aint that the truth! Honestly, the more facts I give them, the worse of a person I seem to become, lol.. Its quite entertaining, though!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

Yukon said:


> JD,
> 
> My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.



It is at the very least helpful for JD that we have people like yourself to show her text book defintions of actual straw man arguments.

Much appreciated.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

Yukon said:


> JD,
> 
> My child don't waste your time with facts. These people only believe in "invisable" people who live in the sky, and burning bushes issuing orders. In fact they are hate filled, Nazi zealots who want you and I and everyone to think, do, and act EXACTLY as they say.


The only thing funnier (and more pathetic) than that post is that JD(who believes in invisible people and talking bushes) thanked you for it.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion.  Biology 101.
> ...




Damn, you're stupid...





> See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are.



She didn't say they weren't alive. She said they aren't organisms.


> I have 3 kids myself



Fuck. Who let that happen?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > JD,
> ...





He attacks you and you applaud him?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 19, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > A restaurant is built. The ovens are on, the stoves are burning, the refrigerator is going, and yet, no food is being served, no patrons are dining, etc, etc.
> ...


 
I don't specifically believe in God, in the traditional sense. I am agnostic. I do however believe that something important happens in that moment that could not possibly happen without a supreme being/ paranormal force. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Just because it has a brain, doesnt mean it thinks. Just because it has eyes, doesnt mean it sees. Just because it has ears, doesn't mean it hears. Just because it CAN be independent, doesn't mean it IS.
> ...


 
You never argue anything. Thats your problem. All you do on here is bitch about other people's arguments, without gving any input of your own. You are a common troll.  




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I am sick and damned tired of you "coming back" with some ridiculous "Oh you havent explained your case well enough." or some such thing. You Bern, have not listed a single medical journal to support your own claims, and all you have fucking done is try to SAY that based on your own personal and clearly subjective opinions, mine, and my medical journal research is "too difficult to understand" so you just brush it all off and constantly ask the same fucking questions over and fucking over, like a broken record. No, man- I am NOT going to spend the rest of MY life explaining and reexplaining this to you, just because you are to thick to fucking GET it. When you come back with something worth debating, and stop attacking my posts, probably out of a giddy trollish jolly you get from all of this, then I will talk again. Till then buzz off.
> ...


 

SAYING that medical research is not true does not MAKE it untrue, you fucking zit. It certainly does not PROVE it wrong. Try adding something to the discussion on here, rather than acting like a pathetic whiny troll. You have dont nothing to further discusson on this topic, and everything to verily halt it from going further. You are NOT objective, you are a fucking retarded whiny little bitch, and as far as message boards go, you are a troll.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1844499 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > JD,
> ...



What facts? You have not once supported your postion that personhood begins with the first breath with anything closely resembling a fact. 

The legality of the issue is not fact based evidence of personhood.

Divine intervention is not fact based evidence of personhood.

What is hilarious is watching someone continually have to change their rationalization for a position. A woman can have an abortion anytime because the child is not autonomous, because it hasn't taken a breath yet, because divine intervention hasn't taken place. The list goes on and on. None of that changes the fact that you haven't been able to tell us why a person becomes a person at the point in time you defined. It is certainly convenient for your position on abortion, but there isn't any fact based evidence there to show that it was somehow less of a person mere seconds before. 

None of this has to be subjective at all. If personhood is your qualifier for justifying when abortion can take place then all you have to do is show how a fetus does not meet that criteria of person as it is defined. One of the definitions of peson is 'a living human'. You agreed the fetus is human. That leaves alive. What does it mean to be alive? So ya look up the defintion for that word and explain why a fetus doesn't fit it.

What is somewhat more baffling is that this debate about when person becomes a person is only relevant if that matters to you from a legal perspective. You said it wouldn't. If for arguments sake we knew the truth was that a fetus is person sometime before birth, killing it should still not be a legal offense, you said. Correct me if I'm wrong. Which further begs the question why you continue to debate personhood. Why you continue to proport that you have evidence of this phenomenon that you don't.




JD_2B said:


> [=SAYING that medical research is not true does not MAKE it untrue, you fucking zit. It certainly does not PROVE it wrong. Try adding something to the discussion on here, rather than acting like a pathetic whiny troll. You have dont nothing to further discusson on this topic, and everything to verily halt it from going further. You are NOT objective, you are a fucking retarded whiny little bitch, and as far as message boards go, you are a troll.



I'll add simply by suggesting that you read for comprehension. I did not say the authors of what you posted were wrong in what they wrote. I said YOU are wrong in believeing what they wrote supports your postion s of personhood. 

How to best spell this out for you.....

You're postion is that personhood begins with the first breath. You posted articles that you claimed support that position. These articles talked about lung development. I accepted what was written as fact. What I don't accept via simple observation is that what they wrote speaks to YOUR definition of personhood. it simply doesn't.



JD_2B said:


> I don't specifically believe in God, in the traditional sense. I am agnostic. I do however believe that something important happens in that moment that could not possibly happen without a supreme being/ paranormal force.



Then our religous beliefs are actually quite similar. If that is what you believe less any other quantifiable evidence are you not  forced to admit that your defintion of when abortion is justified, is at best just as subjective as anyone elses? That is why I am serious when I ask are you interested in finding the truth or just rationalizing a belief?



JD_2B said:


> You never argue anything. Thats your problem. All you do on here is bitch about other people's arguments, without gving any input of your own. You are a common troll.



Why is it you still can't hold yourself accountable for your actions? Why is it when called on making a straw man argumet you can't act like a grown up and admit to it? I have stated my argument several times. And I understand you don't like it, but one type of legitimate evidence for my position is showing that yours is wrong. My postion is pretty simple. It rests on the presumption that intentionally killing an innocent human being should be a legally punishable offense. IF a fetus at some point is a human being that killing it, born or not, should also be legally punishable. That can be countered a couple ways. Either factually and objectively show that a fetus is at no point in the pregnancy a human being. OR you can make the case that innocent human being or not, killing it should not be a legal offense.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> The common ancestor was primates. Read the article. There is also evidence that suggests that humans and wolves procreated about 10,000- 14,000 years ago, which is thought to be how dogs were created in the first place. The only reason we don't know more than we do is because we lack sufficient technology to read the genetic sequences, in dogs and humans, because dogs have been reproduced so specifically within their breeds, that they have very breed specific genetics, and so each breed takes a lot of individual attention to check out their genomes.
> 
> PS- Don't respond to my posts if you dont agree and are just going to call me an idiot or something. My whole point to all that "dog- human breeding" comment was more of an illustration than anything. If a dog- human was inside of a person, would it then be a human being with rights?? Obviously that is beside the point, but I want to show how some people think that certain people have special rights over others. In your case, a fetus seems to have rights over a woman.


ctrl+f: 10,000



> The  current SNP map has sufficient density and an adequate within-breed  polymorphism rate (
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Moreover, comparison of the boxer and standard poodle genome sequences  reveals more than 10,000 insertion sites that are bimorphic, with  thousands more certain to be segregating in the dog population16,  39.  In contrast, the number of polymorphic SINE insertions in the human  genome is estimated to be fewer than 1,000 (ref. 40).





> The expected distribution based on 10,000 randomized trials





> Whereas human association studies require >300,000 evenly spaced SNPs100,  106,  107,  the fact that LD extends over at least 50-fold greater distances in dog  suggests that dog association studies would require perhaps
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> The expected number of sets at a given _z_-score threshold was  estimated by repeating steps (1)(4) 10,000 times for groups of 4,950  randomly permuted gene sets.







> The history of the domestic dog traces back at least 15,000 years, and  possibly as far back as 100,000 years, to its original domestication  from the grey wolf in East Asia1,  2,  3,  4.  Dogs evolved through a mutually beneficial relationship with humans,  sharing living space and food sources.





> Nowhere does it say caveman got knocked up by wolves.
> The dog is similarly important for the comparative analysis of mammalian  genome biology and evolution. The four mammalian genomes that have been  intensely analysed to date (human20,  21,  22,  chimpanzee23,  mouse24  and rat25)  represent only one clade (Euarchontoglires) out of the four clades of  placental mammals. The dog represents the neighbouring clade,  Laurasiatheria26.  It thus serves as an outgroup to the Euarchontoglires and increases the  total branch length of the current tree of fully sequenced mammalian  genomes, thereby providing additional statistical power to search for  conserved functional elements in the human genome24,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  33.  It also helps us to draw inferences about the common ancestor of the  two clades, called the boreoeutherian ancestor, and provides a bridge to  the two remaining clades (Afrotheria and Xenarthra) that should be  helpful for anchoring low-coverage genome sequence currently being  produced from species such as elephant and armadillo28.




Genome sequence, comparative analysis and haplotype structure of the domestic dog : Article : Nature

Nowhere did it say any of the things you said.

Did you read the article?

Reading Comprehension - Free Worksheets

Reading Comprehension - Printables & Worksheets

Reading Comprehension, Lesson Plans, Games and Worksheets

Reading Comprehension Worksheets


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 19, 2010)

Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.



Why do people keep making this asanine argument? Im pretty libertarian myself I don't believe in laws whos only purpose is to protect people from their own stupidity. Do whatever the fuck you want to do yourself. I don't give a shit. Stop with the sanctimonious drivel above. No one is arguing agaisnt it. 

I, and socities governed by laws in general, give a shit when what you do to yourself starts to negatively effect OTHER people. This isn't about what I think woman should be able to do to themselves. It's about what they can do to OTHERS.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 19, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.
> ...



It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body. If you want to have the "at what time is the fetus a person" debate is another issue. But to say its just wrong because of a persons religious beliefs is wrong. 

On the other point if a life form can not live a sustained life on its own with out the using another lifeforms' energy, its usually defined as a parasite. 

I would also rather see less babies suffering.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 19, 2010)

Prove that not aborting contributes to the suffering of children. Use statistics, please.

Good luck. Can't be done.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.


Cool. So you have no objection to me strapping a bomb to it and detonating it in Times Square on New Years Eve?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body




Wrong. Time for a remedial biology lesson: Another organism is not a part of your own body.


> On the other point if a life form can not live a sustained life on its own with out the using another lifeforms' energy, its usually defined as a parasite.



Like you. See, you need the energy you get from other lifeforms- that's why you eat.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 19, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1920298 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Its not my place to tell someone else to do to their body.
> ...



By all means and hopefully it will detonate before you reach Times Square. By the way is it the 72 virgins that you want?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body. If you want to have the "at what time is the fetus a person" debate is another issue. But to say its just wrong because of a persons religious beliefs is wrong.



My opinions about abortion have little to do with my relgious beliefs. I have yet to see a compelling argument that a baby is less of a human being moments before birth to moments after. If just doing something to one's own body is all this was about I would be right with you. But that isn't what abortion is. Abortion is doing something to another body that happens to reside within you.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 19, 2010)

Yukon said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1920298 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Awesome!


Let the record show Yukon supports mass murder.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 19, 2010)

Mass murder is being committed every day in Iraq. Bombs are being dropped on innocent men, women, and children.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

Yukon said:


> Mass murder is being committed every day in Iraq. Bombs are being dropped on innocent men, women, and children.



Let the record show this is not a denial.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 19, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



We just spent 40 pages discussing personhood, Bern the troll and I did, and guess what? Bern claims that peer reviewed medical research is worthless, because "he cant understand it", and thus, it does not "do anything to further my point", etc, etc. Cecile is the same way, as is pro. 
In fact, Pro posted a ton of websites on here, all of which he obviously googled, which I copied and pasted relevant information from, which negated HIS points (they are saying that a fetus is a person!!) and supported mine (I am pro choice all the way). Of course, posts like that get drowned out by all the flaming and trolling this extremely long winded thread has seen.. but I guess that is just how the antis roll... 

Don't waste your time, lol.. These guys aren't worth it!!


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Where did any peer reviewed medical research you posted ever broach the subject of personhood? I explained to you none of this is subjective. A person is defined is an alive human. You agreed a fetus is human. The definition of alive is not dead according to the dictionary. That is pretty clear cut that a a fetus is a person at some point in the womb.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 19, 2010)

What the hell is JD babbling about now?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 19, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What the hell is JD babbling about now?



At this point she is about as coherent as someone desperately trying convince people water isn't wet.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...

Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person.  Fucking idiot. Try Try again...


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1920308 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body
> ...



Perhaps I should be more specific than since you don't understand what I meant. 

While I do use energy from other lifeforms. I acquire the food on my own. Weather its go out and buy some meat or, in the animal world, hunting or grazing.  A unborn fetus can't be removed from the host and still survive. Does that make more sense to you now? 

On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to  raise a child properly.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...
> 
> Sperm is human... sperm is not dead... Sperm is a person.  Fucking idiot. Try Try again...



I used human as a noun modified by the word alive. You used human as an adjective to modify the noun sperm. I hope you have enough knowledge of the english language to understand the difference and the implications of it.

What you fail to accept is that you needed to come up with a term to justify your position on abortion. You came up with personhood. Which really wasn't the best choice, seeing as how the accepted definitions don't really fit that.  Don't piss and moan at me. Take it up with Merriam-Webster. You will see mulitple defintions of the word person there. Some will fit a fetus and some will not. Pick one.

Main Entry: per·son 
Pronunciation: \&#712;p&#601;r-s&#601;n\
Function: noun 
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek pros&#333;pa, plural of pros&#333;pon face, mask &#8212; more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century
1 : human, individual &#8212;sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

&#8212; per·son·hood  \-&#716;hu&#775;d\ noun 

&#8212; in person : in one's bodily presence <the movie star appeared in person>


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl, I have made these same points over and over again with these idiots, and they do not seem to want to face facts on this issue..   I just don't want to see you wasting several weeks and forty more pages on people whose minds are too jaded by emotion to see the facts for what they are. =)


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > By this logic, a sperm cell is a person...
> ...


 
Oh for crying out loud- you have got to be kidding me. You are claiming that just because something has human DNA, and is growing, it is alive, and as long as it is human and alive then it is a person. This is YOUR logic that is wrong, not mine. By YOUR logic, you even think that a blastocyst or embryo is a person, based on it being human, and growing. 

All I have ever asked of you is to be consistent with your logic, and you cant even do that much.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 20, 2010)

Fifty fucking pages.. 50!! Will this illogical, overemotional madness you people have ever end??? GOOD GRIEF!!!!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> In fact, Pro posted a ton of websites on here, all of which he obviously googled, which I copied and pasted relevant information from, which negated HIS points (they are saying that a fetus is a person!!) and supported mine (I am pro choice all the way). Of course, posts like that get drowned out by all the flaming and trolling this extremely long winded thread has seen.. but I guess that is just how the antis roll...
> 
> Don't waste your time, lol.. These guys aren't worth it!!


So you admit the studies agree with me and Cecile, yet think that in doing so they are negating that which they support?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What the hell is JD babbling about now?


I''m pretty sure she has no idea.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> A unborn fetus can't be removed from the host and still survive. Does that make more sense to you now?




Ever heard of birth? 

Or C-sections?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to  raise a child properly.



This is probably the worst justification for abortion there is and a cop out more than anything. We should abort babies because of how their lives MIGHT turn out?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

The concept of 'viability' was refuted as irrelevant to the discussion some time ago. Go read the thread.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Fifty fucking pages.. 50!! Will this illogical, overemotional madness you people have ever end??? GOOD GRIEF!!!!



Pot meet kettle. Will you ever grow a shred of integrity and hold yourself accountable for the endless waffling and hypocrisy you have demonstrated here?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Fifty fucking pages.. 50!! Will this illogical, overemotional madness you people have ever end??? GOOD GRIEF!!!!
> ...


I'm doubtful of that.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923391 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > A unborn fetus can't be removed from the host and still survive. Does that make more sense to you now?
> ...



Replace fetus with Zygote than if it suites the example more. Or better still at 4 months if you took out the fetus and just put it down than it would die.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to  raise a child properly.
> ...



So an abortion should never happen even if its a homeless woman? Or a 14 year old should have the baby even if she doesn't want it? And I would say that many laws made are based on statistics and (I would hope) common sense.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...




You are so caught up in how condescending you can be you arent even attempting anymore to carry on an honest debate. I never claimed any of those things. 

I am trying to use the dictionary defintions of terms to understand your postion.

*Person* according to Merriam-Webster



> Main Entry: per·son
> Pronunciation: \&#712;p&#601;r-s&#601;n\
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek pros&#333;pa, plural of pros&#333;pon face, mask &#8212; more at prosopopoeia
> ...



If personhood is what you feel to still be the best qualifier for justifying abortion then pick one of the above so we can move on.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923391 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not necessarily.


And the 'viability' bullshit was refuted a long time ago. Go read the early parts of the thread.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



If only there were some practice....

were people who couldn't care for their children...

could find good homes for them...

and people who can't have kids...

could 'adopt' the child...

if only such a thing existed...


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923454 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923391 said:
> ...



Not to my satisfaction, but we can move past it if you'd like.  

So if I'm understanding your side correctly is that life should be spared and cherished above all else? Looking at some of your threads you made mention of Gaia(sp), so than would you agree that the earth and our habitat is important and because of it we all can effect everyone else based on our decisions?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



The point is you are assuming a negative outcome for the child where no such assumption can be legitametly made. The way you are arguing above it sounds more like your concern is for the difficulty of the mother rather than preventing child suffering. 

I said before that a I support all kinds of instances where abortion should be legal. The only thing I don't think should be supported legally is late term abortions for convenience sake. But people like yourself and JD seem to want to paint people like me with this broad brush. That we're oppossed to all abortions. I think you go that route to avoid having to confront and justify what would amount to a truly irresponsible and immoral decision if a pregnancy reaches that late stage and only then does a woman finally get around do deciding she really doesn't want a baby.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923460 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And if people used it more and there was a higher demand for adoptions I would agree with that being and end all be all. I don't think that point is really valid. The foster care system is pretty full.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Me and you are in full agreement. I don't think women should just be so irresponsible nor did I assume you specifically thought anything. Quite honestly it seems you are the one that lumped me in with someone else based on limited interaction.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923454 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/101378-define-person.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...ty-and-ethics-of-the-termination-of-life.html


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

Neiter thread answered my question about your thoughts on the environment.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

The environment has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923547 said:
			
		

> The environment has nothing to do with the subject at hand.



Yes it does. If you agree that the environment has some control over our well being than it surely has. 

Overpopulation can lead to disastrous effects on the bio-sphere. If someone doesn't want a child, and that child will cause damage to the environment, I don't see why they should not be allowed to abort.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

So now you're advocating homicide because we have to kill the children to protect the children from too many children?


Seriously?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923582 said:
			
		

> So now you're advocating homicide because we have to kill the children to protect the children from too many children?
> 
> 
> Seriously?



To a certain degree yes. If you'd like to word it in order to degenerate the conversation that's fine. So you don't have a counter point?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.

America already went that route....


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923628 said:
			
		

> Why not just kill, Ispl, then? Are we to begin deciding who should live and who should die for not transgression for some vague 'greater good' or sick 'morality'? America did something similar in the 20's. Should we focus on the poor, since they can't 'contribute' and are, therefore, part of 'the problem'? What about the feebleminded, the crippled, and undesirable races and children of criminals.
> 
> America already went that route....



good and evil (transgressions) are just as subjective as "the greater good"

However overpopulation and human effects on the world are very objective.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923628 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let the record show Ispl does not deny that (s)he's no different than the eugenicists of the 20's and (s)he supports choosing who's worthy of life.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923655 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923628 said:
> ...



Again your dramatics and false assumptions only show your inability to have mature debate.

But to respond to your retort, you do the same thing as well every time you do or do not donate to certain charities. In fact, you've already stated that its OK to kill at certain times.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923547 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We all damage the environment. That doesn't mean it's right to kill each other.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 20, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923547 said:
> ...



This is where the fundamental difference is. I don't look at early abortions as killing. Right and wrong are only dictated by the populous of that particular society. Prohibition used to be considered right until the population changed their view.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 20, 2010)

Factoid:

ABORTION UP = FEWER NEGROS = DECREASE in CRIME


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923655 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're comparing not being able to donate to every charity on earth to homicide?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sperm and eggs don't "like" anything, because they aren't organisms, and are incapable of thought or emotion.  Biology 101.
> ...



Oh, for crying out loud unprintably!  Is it at ALL possible that you uneducated dimwits could enroll in a frigging remedial biology class somewhere and stop expecting me to explain scientific facts so basic that my kids knew and understood them in elementary school?  In my state, adult educators get $30-40k a year for doing what you expect me to do for free here.

Yes, body cells are alive.  They are not organisms.  They are PARTS of organisms.  They do not think or "have instinct" in the same sense that an organism does.  That's like saying your white blood cells think because they "find" germs and destroy them.  Performing their basic cellular function does not indicate any level of thought, not even that of instinct.



GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I find your attitude of "killing someone is okay, because once they're dead, they don't know the difference" to be intriguing, to say the least.
> ...



In other words, you believe exactly what I said you did, which is that some people are disposable because you've determined that they don't know the difference, anyway.



GHook93 said:


> See you don't see view the sperm and egg as alive, when technically both are. My opinion is I don't consider a fetus in as a person (in the first trimester) in the same sense you do, so I don't see it as murder.



Of course I view body cells as alive.  I don't view them as separate organisms, because they aren't . . . and because I passed my biology classes in school.

I don't give a rat's ass what your "opinion" is of what a fetus is or isn't, because it's not a matter of opinion.  I'm not asking if you think pink or blue is a prettier color.  A fetus is what he is, and that's a matter of fact, not up for a vote.



GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > However, in the context of putatively responding to my post, it's irrelevant and non-responsive.  You appear to feel that death is better than adoption.
> ...



No, you appear to think that death is better than adoption.  Don't try to change the subject.  This is what you said:

You still have to account for a teen's lack of full maturity and inability to provide for a family.

Please demonstrate to me that, in the context of the conversation that was occurring at that time, that you were NOT saying that being aborted was a better choice for the child than being adopted, since that is the obvious choice - for those of us who don't view babies as disposable, anyway - when a teenager gets pregnant.



GHook93 said:


> I have 3 kids myself and never thought about abortion. Nevertheless, I still think its a right people should have.



Am I supposed to give you a brownie because you only believe in killing OTHER PEOPLE's kids?  Is that supposed to be a laudable, praiseworthy attitude?  You're actually proud of what a good person you are because you never considered killing your kids?



GHook93 said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > I pointed out that real, living people who were adopted would be very surprised by that opinion.  I didn't say anything about what fetuses, aborted or not, might think.
> ...



I didn't say anything about adopted kids being abortion proponents.  I said they'd be surprised to hear that THEY, PERSONALLY, would have been better off dead than adopted.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > JD,
> ...



That would be because the only actual fact you have to offer is that you are a sick, twisted puppy . . . or is that puppy-screwer?  I forgot you believe your dog can impregnate you.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> I don't look at early abortions as killing.



Because you're retarded. It's killing something by definition.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1919213 said:
			
		

> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > JD,
> ...



Does she believe in invisible people and talking bushes?  I thought she just believed that her dog could impregnate her.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1919213 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





JD_2B said:


> FYI- I consider it to be at the point of taking it's first breath, because the bible defines it that way.



.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



Would you please link for us the point where anyone made an argument against abortion based on telling a woman what to do with her body, or JUST because of religious beliefs?  If not, would you please sit down, shut your gaping cakehole, and stop interjecting arguments which are not taking place into the thread?  Thank you so much.



Ipsl said:


> On the other point if a life form can not live a sustained life on its own with out the using another lifeforms' energy, its usually defined as a parasite.



Shockingly, Science Boy, definitions often rely on more points than just your personal understanding thereof.  Here's the ACTUAL definition of "parasite" - not that it makes any difference to this discussion:

Parasite -  an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism:   something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Parasitism -  an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

You might notice that a lack of "useful or adequate return" and "usually injures" are included in the definition.



Ipsl said:


> I would also rather see less babies suffering.



And your solution is to kill them?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > It clearly IS about what one woman is goign to do to her body. If you want to have the "at what time is the fetus a person" debate is another issue. But to say its just wrong because of a persons religious beliefs is wrong.
> ...



I have yet to say a single thing about religion in any abortion thread, except in response to someone ELSE bringing it up.  Noticeably, it's almost always the pro-aborts who bring religion into the topic.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > Mass murder is being committed every day in Iraq. Bombs are being dropped on innocent men, women, and children.
> ...



That's not anything at all.  What the hell is his response even supposed to mean?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> What the hell is JD babbling about now?



As long as it's not more blather about women in Mexico giving birth to puppies.  Sometimes, her posts are like reading _The Weekly World News_.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Try some gingko biloba for your memory, so that we don't have to recite every single freaking point in every single freaking post, okay?  By this point, the fact that a fetus is an organism as well as alive, where a sperm cell is not an organism in addition to being alive should not require constant repetition to be understood.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

I tried ginko.... but I kept forgetting to take it


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1920308 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You acquire food "on your own" by getting it from someone else, just by purchasing it rather than through an umbilical cord.  Even if you hunt it yourself, you are still acquiring energy from other lifeforms . . . the lifeforms you hunt and kill (or pull up from the garden, for that matter).  

As for removing a fetus from his mother's womb and his inability to survive it, the operative question becomes, "So what?"



Ipsl said:


> On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to  raise a child properly.



Does the word "adoption" ring any bells in your skull?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Ipsl, I have made these same points over and over again with these idiots, and they do not seem to want to face facts on this issue..   I just don't want to see you wasting several weeks and forty more pages on people whose minds are too jaded by emotion to see the facts for what they are. =)



Perhaps Ipsl will have more luck than you because he avoids telling us how dogs can impregnate humans.

Probably not, since the arguments are still crap, but at least he won't be the object of ridicule you are.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 20, 2010)

At least she's easy, Cecile, and therefore of use.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Yeah, he's claiming that because something is growing, it's alive . . . BECAUSE IT IS.  Only living things truly grow.  Anything else is only referred to as "growing" through loose language usage, since that's how it appears.

I love how you triumphantly proclaim that that logic makes an embryo a person, as though you think that definitely shows a flaw in the logic.  An embryo IS a person, however.  
A very, VERY young one.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > On the other note about children suffering its pretty cut and dry. People are becoming sexually active at younger ages and many do not use protection. Now that child will/ could suffer from lack of real support monetarily and mentally. A 14 year old doesn't have the money or the maturity to  raise a child properly.
> ...



You've never heard abortionists make the argument that we should view abortion as a "mercy killing" because we're sparing children from having terrible lives?  "Every child a wanted child" was a very popular abortion slogan for a while, until pro-lifers began pointing out the ugly truth behind it, and that many of the greatest people in history had truly appalling childhoods.

They've also tried to make the argument - debunked now - that legalized abortion lowers the crime rate, so we should kill children for the good of society.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 20, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



So now you feel that it's better to kill the children of "undesirables" like homeless people?  Exactly where would you like to draw the line of "undesirables" who shouldn't procreate?

I'm not sure what to say to the notion that unwanted babies deserve to die.  Words fail me in expressing my revulsion.

Many laws ARE based on statistics and common sense.  Many are not.  The more emotional the issue, the less likely that is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923460 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There are lots of reasons that foster care is so full, and it isn't because there aren't people who want to adopt unwanted babies, and even unwanted older children.  One big reason for the overflow in foster care is that many of the children there are not available for adoption because the system is trying to reunite them with their parents.  I'd have to look up the statistics, if they're even available, but I'd guess those children make up a goodly portion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923582 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think just restating your position serves as a counterpoint.  Why is it that people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation always think it's someone ELSE who should die?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923628 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's why no one argues that point . . . oh, wait, they do.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923655 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923628 said:
> ...



I wonder if Ipsl has ever read "A Modest Proposal", and if he thought it was a serious suggestion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



The fact that abortions are killing is not a matter of opinion any more than the facts of what a fetus is are.  When are you people going to get over thinking that biological/scientific fact is up for a vote?

Feel free to make the argument that killing unborn babies is moral, if you think you can manage it.  But don't waste our time with a puerile attempt to assert that abortion isn't killing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1925857 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1919213 said:
> ...



I dunno if that means she believes everything else in the Bible, but I guess she DOES believe the Bible is a medical textbook.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1925913 said:
			
		

> At least she's easy, Cecile, and therefore of use.



Lord knows, she has provided me and my friends many hours of amusement at her expense.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Parasite -  an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism:   something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return



That sounds like a fetus to me.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I don't think they are babies if they are unable to exist without the direct heklp from the mothers body. I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion. Besides morality has nothing to do with laws. You want to base an argument on morals or ethics there is a different  area for that. 

Any other assumptions you'd like to make and continue to insult me?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923582 said:
> ...



So you do a agree that overpopulation is a problem. Thats good to know.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1925195 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1923655 said:
> ...



You support who is and who isn't worth of life in the same fashion that you describe.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Just cause you repeat yourself doesn't make it right.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Since we agreed that you and I basically agree on when abortions should be allowed, the million dollar queston is do you think they should be illegal, and thus a punishable offense, at some point in the pregnancy?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I think that late term abortions should be illegal and a punishable offense. Though I would say that the punishment should be sterilization. Though to be honest I couldn't give you a specific time frame on when is "too late"


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



I just do not understand for the life of me, where the logic comes from with people saying that women should be allowed to abort if their life depends on it, (which is a choice, and not the kind of thing that hospitals tend to do without consent), women should not be punished or treated as petri dishes to investigate stillbirths, but women who end a pregnancy by choice should suddenly be sterilized, all because of when the abortion occurred, considering the fact that nobody who holds this stance can pinpoint a certain specific time of gestation as to when this type of punishment should be utilized.. 

There simply is no guarantee that any pregnancy is going to make it to become a full term live birth, so I truly do not get why anyone would give entitlements (rights) to a fetus at any stage.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



That is an interesting punishment. I think life in prison is a little strong. You would almost have to create a law dealing with illegal abortions.

I don't know about the time frame either. I think the best you can do is draw a line at the latest point we know we're not dealing with a person. As JD has found though, there are all kinds of problems when it comes to what constitutes a person. It is difficult to define specifically the traits that need to be in place for one to determine that aborting with those traits in place should be illegal. Person may be the best, but even that's not very good, because one definition of the word clearly supports JDs argument (the legal term) in other defintions a fetus in the womb is also cleary a person. But the question is what makes one definition more valid than the other?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



That argument doesnt work either as the same argument would apply to born people too. Just as there is no gauruntee that a child will survive the 9 months of pregnancy there is no gauruntee it will live to see 10, 25, 50 or 100 years of age, thus according to you they should have not protection from someone else who feels burdened by them.

What is so hard to understand about simply making the best choice possible for all parties involved?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I believe that a late term abortion, outside of medical justification, is irresponsible. The woman has had many months to determine if she wants the kid. I think she should be startled because she clearly isn't responsible. Also laws are ment more as a deterrent than a punishment.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'm personally opposed to jail time for non-violent offenders. (For the most part) So I don;t think jail time would be just.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 21, 2010)

How is murder non-violent?

??????


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> How is murder non-violent?
> 
> ??????



I don't look at it is as murder.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.




Ignoring the fact that the above comment is simply wrong, 

why are you arguing the morality of the matter in a thread about law, if the two are unrelated?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928038 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Besides morality has nothing to do with laws.
> ...



Laws have to do with public opinion. I'm not arguing about morality. 

Good Morning.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 21, 2010)

If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928038 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Ipsl said:


> . I also don't think it would be immoral to do have an abortion.





> Laws have to do with public opinion.



Laws are a class of enforceable ethics.

Ethics are heavily influences by the morality of the persons who constitute the collective.

Ergo, law is ultimately based, in part, on common or shared morality


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.


It could be manslaughter.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 21, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.



Not exactley true. There's manslaughter. You can be charged with a crime just for being negligent. Vehicular homicide for example. Murder specifically requires intent.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.



Thats a very flawed statement. Things are illegal because society deems it so. Besides, theft is a crime and defiantly isn't murder.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928072 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928038 said:
> ...



The point is though you can't say something should be legal or illegal solely based on morality since that has and will change.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Parasite -  an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism:   something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
> ...



Really?  What harm does a fetus "usually" bring to his mother?

And my second question:  Even if a fetus can be considered a parasite, so what?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



I haven't insulted you . . . yet.  If I decide to, trust me, you'll know, especially if you're really that thin-skinned.  You might want to either toughen up or take yourself out of the political chats and go find a nice knitting group.

I have already said that what you think or what your opinion is of what a fetus is is irrelevant, since it's not up for debate.  Continuing to assert your opinion as though it's a concrete base for anything just means that you aren't reading or paying attention to the posts you're putatively responding to.  Trust me when I tell you that just pushing the reply button and spewing your talking points as though you're lecturing instead of conversing is one of the fastest ways to convince me that you're a troll deserving of no more from me than to mock you and laugh at you derisively.  If you want polite conversation, you will observe the first rule thereof, which is "Converse with the person, not at her."

As to your erroneous belief that a fetus is not a baby while he cannot live without the mother's body, may I ask you where you found a definition of the word "baby" which included that particular criterion?  Or is this just your own attempt to impose your personal opinions onto science?

I am appalled that you think the law has nothing to do with morality.  Do you honestly think that we just make up laws willy-nilly, with no regard for what is right and wrong in the eyes of society?  Just what do you think the purpose of the law IS, absent any moral considerations?

And excuse me, but this IS the area for arguments based on morals and ethics, because the topic of this thread is not "What are the laws NOW?"  It is "What should the laws be?"  And despite what you think, most people do not suggest laws divorced from any consideration of right and wrong, morality and ethics.  I can't even imagine how one could make an argument for something to be the law without saying, in effect, ". . . because it's the right thing to do."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but where did I say that I thought your silly presumption was correct?  I just asked why you people always think it's a good idea for OTHER people to die to save the planet, rather than manning up and killing yourselves.  It's like you don't really believe in the importance of the cause, or something.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1925195 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, he's just choosing who he does and does not feel able to help.  No one person has the capacity to care about and assist every cause on the entire planet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Are you planning to utterly miss the point in every single post you make?  I'd like to know now, so that I can just ignore you as utterly unworthy of discussion.

I didn't say that I WAS repeating myself.  In fact, what I said was that I did not intend to repeat myself in detail in every post, and that she should try to remember what was said previously, instead of trying to stall the conversation out by being obtuse.

I don't need repetition to make my correct.  Being correct will do that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



You want to forcibly perform an invasive surgical procedure on people's bodies as a legal punishment, but you support abortion because you don't think you have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?  Is THAT your idea of logic?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928038 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And public opinion is based on what, precisely, if not what the people who make up the public think is right and wrong?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



There have been many laws that have been overturned as a direct result the change in public opinion.  

With regards to a fetus being a parasite, yes, that is my opinion as to its viability for being person. To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own (not in the womb) The opinions on what is and isn't a person vary. I will coincide that aborting a fetus is killing just as ending the life of anything is killing. ie: trees, bugs, viruses, cows. I should have specified and said I don't believe it's murder. 

It's very similar to pulling the plug on people on life support. Is (s)he defined as a person. By my logic I would say no. And yes I HAVE had to make that decision before. But I digress that was a tangent.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928072 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928038 said:
> ...



I think we're finally getting to the bottom of why so many people express such asinine, illogical opinions.  Maybe some people really DO wander around saying things like, "I think this should be the law . . . just because."  Apparently, it really is possible to have all manner of opinions and shoot your mouth off about them without ever actually thinking about them at all, let alone reasoning anything out.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation. 

So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > If it's not murder, then it's not a crime, Ips.
> ...



I think some states have a charge of voluntary manslaughter.  I would be curious to know what crime Ipsl would like to convict women of for late-term abortions, which would carry the sentence of forcible bodily mutilation.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Laws change, too.  In fact, laws change as society's moral standards and priorities change.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Who is this you people you speak of? What group are you putting me in?

And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own





This 'nonperson' has done more for humanity than you ever will







If you consider Mr. Hawking a 'nonperson', then it's clear that your concept of 'personhood' is totally meaningless and irrelevant.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



And?  What exactly was the point this was supposed to triumphantly make?



Ipsl said:


> With regards to a fetus being a parasite, yes, that is my opinion as to its viability for being person. To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own (not in the womb) The opinions on what is and isn't a person vary.



Which is meaningless, since - once again - what a fetus is and is not is not a matter of opinion.  It is a matter of medical and scientific fact.  Biology is not decided by a vote.  And you have yet to answer my other question, which is, "So what?"



Ipsl said:


> I will coincide that aborting a fetus is killing just as ending the life of anything is killing. ie: trees, bugs, viruses, cows. I should have specified and said I don't believe it's murder.



It's irrelevant whether or not it's murder, since the question is whether or not it should be viewed as such.  As I've said on another thread concerning a different topic, citing a law as an argument when that very law is the question at hand is circular reasoning and pointless, not to mention laughable.



Ipsl said:


> It's very similar to pulling the plug on people on life support.



Not even remotely.



Ipsl said:


> Is (s)he defined as a person. By my logic I would say no..



That also is not up for a vote.  Nor am I seeing any "logic" in the offing here.  All I've seen you do is assert that "such and so" is your opinion, so there.  I'm still waiting to hear what this famous "logic" behind those opinions is.



Ipsl said:


> And yes I HAVE had to make that decision before. But I digress that was a tangent.



Didn't ask, don't care, please do not spew your private life all over me.  This is not your group therapy session, and I'm not getting paid to care about your personal problems.  I will accept personal anecdotes to illustrate a point, if necessary, but this illustrates nothing except perhaps that you have an embarrassing tendency toward exhibitionism.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928072 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Was that a swipe at me?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.




So the common morality of the American public has changed, and the ethical and legal changes in America area reflection of that change?

In other words, you're arguing that I'm right and your asinine atteempts at semantics are the desperate  mental gymnastics of an ignorant fool?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928702 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own
> ...



He was not born that way for one, I should have specified.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> And you would be surprised at my lifestyle and how little I personally effect my environment.


In other words, you have no friends and noone with two functioning brain cells listens to you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.
> 
> So while something may be immoral to you, it may not be for the populous there by NOT making it public opinion.



Individual people may not change their moral positions all that much, but societies do.  And that is most often what is behind a change in the laws.

Christians HAVE changed over time.  Certainly the moral stances based on a literal interpretation of Biblical values are still there as they always were, but where the majority of people and virtually all Christians used to accept that standard, today you have a wide range of Christians and so-called Christians running around, claiming all manner of moral standards.  That is a change in society which has led to changes in many laws.

You're confused.  I didn't say that laws were based on MY moral standards, or that public opinion was based on MY moral standards.  I said public opinion, and the laws based thereon, are based on SOCIETY'S moral standards.

Please read for comprehension, because I get very tired of having to take two or three posts to explain a point that I made very clearly in the first one, simply because you didn't bother to read it, or read it but didn't think about what it actually meant.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928702 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Specified what? By your definition, he is a non-person since, leftto hisown devices, he could not sustain his own existence.

Did you mean you should have specified that you're an idiot and you have no idea what you're talking about or that you're a moron and don't think before you speak?

Does a soldier become a non-person the moment they're maimed by an IED and become a person again once a Corpsman has stabilized them? Or does the ability to survive on one's own without dependence upon another have nothing to do with what makes one a person?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



Please go back and read for comprehension.  I very clearly said in the post previous to the one you tried to respond to "people who think killing to prevent harm to the environment through overpopulation".  You would not have to waste space asking me who I was talking about if you would just read the post carefully the first time.

You would be surprised how much I don't give a rat's ass about your lifestyle.  If you feel the need to somehow "earn" your right to exist, that's your business and of no interest to me.


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You seem to be the one who tried to hoist me by own petard only to have it back fire now you're saying it doesn't matter?


----------



## Ipsl (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > The point is that public opinion changes, while people's morality generally do not. Conservative Christians haven't really changed their morals, but their majority in the country has declined and so their views are no longer our views as a nation.
> ...



And societies moral standards say that abortion is OK. So whats your point?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928702 said:
			
		

> Ipsl said:
> 
> 
> > To me, a person is a person when it can survive on its own
> ...



And for the nitpicky record, Ipsl, it's a moderate grammatical _faux pas_, not to mention quite rude, to refer to any person as "it", even if you're talking hypothetically rather than about a specific person.  The correct word for a person whose sex is not known is "he".

See, Prole, this is what I was saying.  Apparently people really DO wander around, spouting about opinions which they've taken no time to truly contemplate or follow to their logical conclusions.  It's baffling.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928711 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928072 said:
> ...



It was a statement of epiphany on my part, because previously I had thought that people understood the consequences and implications of their beliefs and positions on issues more thoroughly, and simply chose to ignore the things that they didn't like.  I had not considered that it was really possible that such a large number of people were really just jumping to an opinion with little to no consideration.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928702 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't realize that "born that way" was part of your specification.  You merely said that to be a person, one had to survive totally on one's own.

So if Mr. Hawking had been born in that condition, and the entire rest of his life had been exactly the same, he would not be a person in your eyes, because he had never been independent of outside support and assistance?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



As a matter of fact, it didn't backfire, because the same question remains, despite your attempts at deflection.  If the problem is overpopulation, then your lifestyle doesn't matter, because you are part of the problem simply by occupying space which could otherwise be occupied by someone else, or be left unoccupied and therefore cut down on the population.

In terms of hearing about your belief that you must "earn" your right to exist, I didn't ask, don't care, and really wish you would stop unloading your personal issues on me.  I'm debating politics here, not engaging in group therapy.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

Ipsl said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ipsl said:
> ...



No, the moral standards of a handful of Supreme Court Justices say so, since abortion was never made legal by popular vote or by legislation passed by the representatives of the people.

And again, the OP question was what the people on this board personally think the abortion laws should be.

Also, I am getting very tired of having to ask you to please address yourself to the posts you are allegedly responding to.  Simply skipping over the evidence that you're being obtuse and moving on to another topic makes you look shifty.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928821 said:
			
		

> If a 'non-person' can contribute so much and prove so inspirational a human being as Mr Hawking, methinks 'personhood' is of no consequence whatsoever!



True, but then, it was never of any consequence, anyway, being merely a made-up concept invented by people desperate to justify abortion when medical science and publicity for same made it clear they were no longer going to be able to base their arguments on fallacies and the ignorance of the public.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928821 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I believe you are already aware of my views on the matter, so I'll not launch another rant. Suffice to say I stand by my definition of 'person(hood)' as roughly synonymous with 'a sentient mind'.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928863 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1928821 said:
> ...



Okay, go ahead.  Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human being.  On the other hand, I don't have any positions or opinions of which I am ashamed, or which I would find contradictory to my self-image, were they to be couched in clear, concise terms, rather than in warm, comforting euphemisms, so I assume that's why I don't have any need to twist myself into the semantic and philosophical pretzels so many other people do.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

> Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human  being.



What of the braindead? Your use of 'person' in such a manner necessitates that you clarify. Are all living human organisms of equal moral weight? Can no other thing be of such moral relevance? again, I ask you how a theoretical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines would fit into your worldview.

I see all of these as sentient minds outside of myself. I don't see how the system from which that mind emerges is relevant.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929047 said:
			
		

> > Personally, if I must define "person", I define it as a living human  being.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The braindead are, by definition, not alive.

Equal moral weight?  Yes and no.  Obviously, not all lives have the same claim upon us, for various reasons, but I believe all human lives demand that we treat them with the same basic respect for the fact that they exist and are human lives.  

For example, the burning building question so many abortion supporters like and think proves something it does not.  If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos?  I would almost certainly save Ipsl, minus any extenuating circumstances, but that doesn't mean I consider the embryos to be any less alive than he is.  It just means that, for reasons of my own, I consider Ipsl's life to have more of a claim on me than the embryos do.

Look at a slightly different question.  If Ipsl and my 1-year-old son, Quinlan, were in a burning building together, and I could only save one, which would I choose?  In that case, all other factors being equal, I would save Quinlan.  Obviously, that doesn't mean that I don't consider Ipsl to be alive or a human being or valuable as such.  It just means that, for personal reasons such as maternal instinct and emotional attachment, Quinlan's life has more of a claim on me than Ipsl's does.  I would forever feel badly for having had to make such a choice, but I wouldn't regret it or feel ashamed of it or doubt that it was the right one for me.

Consider for a moment the question of heinous killers.  I have absolutely no problem with the idea of the state executing such people when overwhelming evidence is available.  I see it as completely in line with my respect for the sanctity and value of human life, because I think that any lesser forfeit on their part is to say that the lives of their victims were worth less than they are.  On the other hand, I believe that state-sanctioned execution should be as clean and humane as possible, not because their actions or character deserves it, but because our respect for human life as a society demands that we not descend to their level.  And if the building violent criminals are housed in catches on fire, I believe that they should be rescued, not simply ignored and written off.  Again, this is not because they've done anything to deserve such consideration, but because the rest of us should be better than that.

Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment.  I have no evidence whatsoever to make me believe they exist, nor do I have any information about them upon which to base my opinions.  My worldview is predicated on the information currently available to me concerning the way things are, and I will reconsider it to include alien life forms if and when such life forms present themselves to be considered.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The braindead are, by definition, not alive.



Not so. The organism is alive. Else they would simply be dead.

Brain death and clinical death (as measured, in most cases, b pulse and respiration) are not the same thing.




> If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos?



I would, if possible.

I might leave JD and Ispl to burn.



> Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment.



Why do you insist on evading the question?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 21, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > The braindead are, by definition, not alive.
> ...



In essence, they ARE dead.  They are not thriving, they are not self-directing.  They are merely bodies being artificially animated by machines.

Now, for the sake of grammatical expedience and politeness, I would probably still refer to them in conversation as "braindead people", but in any meaningful sense, they really are not any longer.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
			
		

> Brain death and clinical death (as measured, in most cases, b pulse and respiration) are not the same thing.



When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation.  I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
			
		

> > If an abortion supporter - say Ipsl, because if you say JD, it may change the answer for other reasons - if Ipsl were in a fertility clinic with a bunch of embryos in test tubes, and the building were on fire, would I save Ipsl or would I save the embryos?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's why I ruled out using JD as the example.  On  the other hand, I don't think either of us is arguing that JD and Ipsl are not alive and are not people simply because we don't care particularly about their existence.  And I personally don't dislike Ipsl enough to let him die.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
			
		

> > Intelligent alien life forms don't fit into my worldview at all, for the simple reason that they aren't part of my worldview at the moment.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on evading the question?



I'm not.  I answered you.  My worldview is formed and predicated on circumstances and factors which actually exist and can be quantified.  It does not include hypotheticals.  In fact, it can't include things I consider currently non-existent, because there's not sufficient data available for me to work with.  Just as a computer cannot operate without sufficient data, so I cannot, either.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 21, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So you're going from 'they're dead' to 'they're practically dead'?



> They are merely bodies being artificially animated by machines.



Not necessarily. 





> When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation.  I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.



The brainstem can still function without the rest of the brain functioning



> It does not include hypotheticals.



You area liar.

You were the one who brought up a hypothetical fire.

No matter how you dress it up, the fact remains that you are evading the matter.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 23, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The braindead are, by definition, not alive.



Cicilie you may have disproved the theory; after all you are breathing and your heart is obviously beating.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1930209 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1929356 said:
> ...



Crap.  I typed out a nice reply to this, and apparently, my computer never posted it.  I'll try to recreate it a little later, okay?  Sorry about that.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 23, 2010)

Wow- You, Cecile, concede that respiration causes a person to be alive, and yet at the same time, just because I said the exact same thing before, wish I was dead?? 

Psycho bitch. Leave me out of it from here on out, would you please?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Wow- You, Cecile, concede that respiration causes a person to be alive, and yet at the same time, just because I said the exact same thing before, wish I was dead??
> 
> Psycho bitch. Leave me out of it from here on out, would you please?



No, dumbass, we didn't say respiration makes a person alive.  We said the ability to self-direct is one of the hallmarks of life, which includes respirating AND circulation . . . both things that a fetus does on his own, by the way.  Before you get confused, "respiration" is defined as "the physical and chemical processes by which an organism supplies its cells and tissues with the oxygen needed for metabolism and relieves them of the carbon dioxide formed in energy-producing reactions", which a fetus does.  He just doesn't do it by breathing.


And we didn't wish you dead.  We just said your life is not as worth saving as nearly anything else's to us.    You're more than welcome to stay alive if you wish, provided you can do it without any assistance from us.  I thought that was a position you approve of, or is that only for lifeforms OTHER than yourself?


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 23, 2010)

You specifically said:



> When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.



Which includes fetuses you moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 23, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You specifically said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, dumbass, it doesn't.  A fetus is self-directing.  It is HIS body that is controlling the oxygenation of his cells, not his mother's or a machine's.  Yes, he DOES need to have access to oxygen in order to do that, but so do you.  If I put a pillow over your face, you can't respirate, either, but that hardly means you aren't a self-directing organism.

By contrast, a braindead person on life support is NOT self-directing.  The MACHINES are oxygenating his cells, he isn't.  His brain is not sending out any signals to sustain and direct his existence, and neither is anything else in his body.  This is not true of a fetus.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 24, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > You specifically said:
> ...




No- Not any more than a person who has oxygen delivered to them by a machine has, anyways. A fetus simply has a different oxygen SOURCE than a person on a machine does. And a braindead person is hardly a topic of interest to anyone on here, as they are clearly dead and the fact that they are attached to a machine does not change the fact that their "potential to be a person" again will never increase by being on that machine, which is the emotional comparison you make in your mind every time you compare a fetus to a braindead person. A person on life support (say one who either is or is not braindead, but cannot respirate or maintain a blood pressure on their own) is given blood pressure medication much the same way as a fetus being in the woman's body is given blood pressure through veins. Without those veins pumping blood, the fetus would promptly die. The same goes with oxygenation of the blood. It does not MATTER where the source of oxygen and blood comes from. A fetus without that SOURCE is much akin to a braindead person without the machines.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Jan 24, 2010)

yeah, folks don't usually change eachother's opinions on abortion.  Mine is more a political theory type of thing.  Small government means fewer personal regulations so in areas open to debate which don't directly affect my life I'm pro-choice.

Selfish?  yeah.  Then again I don't want some big government intrusion bureaucrat in Washington coming to Oregon and telling me I can't get help from a professional to die peacefully before any cancer finishes making me a vegetable.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Okay, Punkinhead, stay with me on this if you possibly can.

Brain death - the cessation and irreversibility of _all brain function, including brain stem_. (emphasis mine)  Brain Death Criteria - MEDSTUDENTS - NEUROLOGY

Brain death is not medically or legally equivalent to severe vegetative state. In a severe vegetative state, the cerebral cortex, the center of cognitive functions including consciousness and intelligence, may be dead while the brain stem, which controls basic life support functions such as respiration, is still functioning. Death is equivalent to brain stem death.  Brain Death - body, life, cause, time

A life support ventilator does not just "provide oxygen" in this case, Punkinhead.  It mechanically operates the lungs, which in turn keeps the heart beating, since the heart operates independently as long as there is oxygen.  We are not talking about an oxygen mask, where it just pumps in the air for you to breathe.  We are talking about a machine completely taking over for a brain stem which no longer sends out signals.

By contrast, as I said, a fetus's body is self-directing.  The body controls its own oxygenation of its cells.  The umbilical cord is the equivalent of a snorkel when one is swimming underwater.  Are you not living at that point, because you need a conduit for the oxygen to travel through to reach you?  You are correct that the source of the oxygen is not the point.  The point is the source of the CONTROL OF THE OXYGENATION.  In a braindead person, that control is a machine external to the body.  In a fetus, it is the body itself.

Breathing -respirating by means of lungs - is a sign of life in born humans because it is easily recognizable by other humans.  It is not life, and it certainly is not a requirement of being alive, since many life forms don't have lungs and do not breathe the way humans do, but are still alive and do still respirate.  A human fetus simply happens to be a life form designed to respirate without lungs.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

Well, that explains that. We've been using different definitions...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937316 said:
			
		

> Well, that explains that. We've been using different definitions...



When I say "dead", I mean DEAD.  I thought this was pretty clear:

When I talk about "braindead", I am talking about people whose brains are not producing any useful function or meaningful guidance to the body, who require machines to provide respiration and circulation. I am talking about people who, if those machines were unplugged, would immediately cease circulation or respiration and expire immediately.

In other words, a DEAD BRAIN.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

Toronado3800 said:


> yeah, folks don't usually change eachother's opinions on abortion.  Mine is more a political theory type of thing.  Small government means fewer personal regulations so in areas open to debate which don't directly affect my life I'm pro-choice.
> 
> Selfish?  yeah.  Then again I don't want some big government intrusion bureaucrat in Washington coming to Oregon and telling me I can't get help from a professional to die peacefully before any cancer finishes making me a vegetable.



I'm not trying to change JD's opinion, because her opinion isn't predicated on any sort of facts or science data to start with, so no amount of fact or data can change it.  Her opinion is based on her need to be totally self-absorbed and self-serving without having to accept what an utter and complete toxic waste of space she is.  As you can see, her desperation for justification outweighs even the need to sound like a vaguely rational, educated human.

The reason I continue to explain and source these things is to prevent other people, most of whom have never thought about the issue in any great depth or specificity and who generally retain only the most rudimentary knowledge of biology, from being infected by her dangerously stupid, puerile, and - most important - DEAD WRONG statements of absurdity.

I don't know if anyone will change his mind or not, and I don't really care.  What's important to me right now is to get people to own up, in hard, cold, unflinching fact, to what they believe in, instead of hiding behind warm, comforting vagueness and euphemisms.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937316 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was referring to irreversible cessation of higher brain function.


----------



## JD_2B (Jan 24, 2010)

LMAO!! Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first. 

A fetus cannot fucking continue to gestate without these functional biological mechanisms in place. As much as you want to try to twist all of this around, it is impossible for you to say that a fetus or embryo can survive independent the mother. Stop lying to yourself, please.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

Are you still claiming the mother's blood enters the fetus?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937877 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937316 said:
> ...



That just makes one very, very damaged, not dead.  Irreversible cessation of brain function, period, makes one dead, and is in fact the legal definition of "brain dead".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first.
> 
> A fetus cannot fucking continue to gestate without these functional biological mechanisms in place. As much as you want to try to twist all of this around, it is impossible for you to say that a fetus or embryo can survive independent the mother. Stop lying to yourself, please.



Holy God in Heaven, you're thickheadedly, obtusely stupid.  The woman's body doesn't "force" anything into the fetus's body, you flatliner.  The mother's circulation brings oxygen to the placenta, where it is then transferred through the placental membrane to the fetus's blood, which then carries it to the rest of the fetus's body.  It is the fetus's circulation, separate from the mother's, that takes his blood to and from the placenta, and that circulation is powered and directed by HIS body, not hers.

Of course a fetus can't survive earlier than a certain age outside of the womb, BECAUSE THE FETAL LIFEFORM IS DESIGNED TO LIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.  A fish can't live outside the water, either, but that doesn't say jack about whether or not it's alive.

Is it really such a hardship for you to pick up a fucking phone and discuss this with an actual obstetrician, so that you're not wasting everyone's time displaying this utterly appalling willful dumbfuckery?  I swear, you are now appearing less informed about the mechanics of pregnancy than my teenager is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1938509 said:
			
		

> Are you still claiming the mother's blood enters the fetus?



Apparently now she's not just claiming that, she's claiming that it's the mother's heart that's FORCING oxygenated blood into the fetus.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937877 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When the sentient mind ceases to exist, the person ceases to exist as a sentient mind. (S) no longer exists. The brain is only tissue and is itself truly no different than muscle or bone when the emergent mind ceases to be.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

The person is the sentient mind, and their existence can be indirectly checked for by measuring the processes which give rise to it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939652 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1937877 said:
> ...



I'm afraid that your opinion on the importance of sentience is irrelevant to the question of life or death.  We were discussing brain death, which requires the brain to actually be dead.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939657 said:
			
		

> The person is the sentient mind, and their existence can be indirectly checked for by measuring the processes which give rise to it.



Again, that is entirely your opinion.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

I thought we were discussing the value of tissue versus the mind and when the organism should be protected?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 24, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939657 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, it's fact.

no brain activity--> no emergent sentience


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939885 said:
			
		

> I thought we were discussing the value of tissue versus the mind and when the organism should be protected?



Not really.  At the moment, you and I are - or were - discussing my definition of "person".  I said, "living human being"; you said, "Well, what about the brain dead?"; I explained where they fit in and why, and JD rushed in to dazzle us all with her ignorance of biology.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jan 24, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939657 said:
> ...



True, but "person = sentience" is entirely your opinion.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 25, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


to use 'person=human organism' is meaningless. What is missing in the braindead if not the mind? If dependence on machines is all, then what of a man with a failing heart or kidneys?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Jan 25, 2010)

the 'person' is the sentient mind


----------



## Yukon (Jan 29, 2010)

Do you know what the real definition of a PIZZA PIE is?

An ABORTION on toast.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 30, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO!! Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first.
> 
> A fetus cannot fucking continue to gestate without these functional biological mechanisms in place. As much as you want to try to twist all of this around, it is impossible for you to say that a fetus or embryo can survive independent the mother. Stop lying to yourself, please.



So we're back to something's level of dependence is what determines whether abortion is justified?


----------



## Father Time (Jan 30, 2010)

Yukon said:


> Do you know what the real definition of a PIZZA PIE is?
> 
> An ABORTION on toast.



That would be egg on toast.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 31, 2010)

ABORTION is LEGAL and will stay LEGAL. Eat your hearts out CONSERVATIVES and invest in your local ABORTION clinic. At least make some money that you can donate to your local right-wing, religious group.

PRAISE JESUS !


----------



## AllieBaba (Jan 31, 2010)

Yukon said:


> ABORTION is LEGAL and will stay LEGAL. Eat your hearts out CONSERVATIVES and invest in your local ABORTION clinic. At least make some money that you can donate to your local right-wing, religious group.
> 
> PRAISE JESUS !



Abortion became legal illegally. The people were against it, didn't vote on it, and the Supreme Court forced it on us.

What was once made (illegally) legal can just as easily be made illegal again.


----------



## Yukon (Jan 31, 2010)

You stupid pathetic ignorant excuse of humanity. Your Constipation is your LAW MAKER............ABORTION is legal.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2010)

Yukon said:


> You stupid pathetic ignorant excuse of humanity. Your Constipation is your LAW MAKER............ABORTION is legal.



That you have the balls to keep that particular quote as your sig, I think says all we need to know about your credibility. What the SC said about abortion is that people have a right to privacy under the constitution.....up until viability of the fetus. I can only speculate that the reason for that was even they realized the possibility that at a certain point abortion could potentially be considered as infringing on the rights of another.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 1, 2010)

Bern,

It doesnt matter......ABORTION is legal.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 1, 2010)

Yukon said:


> Bern,
> 
> It doesnt matter......ABORTION is legal.



I'm aware of that. Are you so obtuse as to believe that because something is law it's case closed and shouldn't be debated or reconsidered? Should we not have even considered abolishing slavery or given women the status that allows them to choose abortion? In most every case I'm all for it being legal. You can't deny that there is a compelling case that in some instances it could be considered _il_legal. Now other than your pension for the stupidly obvious and being a troll, do you have anything else to add?


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 1, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > ABORTION is LEGAL and will stay LEGAL. Eat your hearts out CONSERVATIVES and invest in your local ABORTION clinic. At least make some money that you can donate to your local right-wing, religious group.
> ...



How do you figure? Supreme Court decisions are primary sources of law, legally speaking, of course. ;-)

Not everything is up to a majority fucking vote. Not slavery, not integration, not women's votes, and also not abortion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939885 said:
			
		

> I thought we were discussing the value of tissue versus the mind and when the organism should be protected?



No.  You might have been.  I'm talking dead vs. alive.  I have the distinct impression that you have an emotional investment in the idea of sentience, such that you're a bit obsessed with it and unable to separate it from the simple issue of life.  For myself, I don't equate the two.  Many things on Earth are alive but do not exhibit the level of sentience adult humans normally have.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939657 said:
> ...



Sorry, but that's a dodge.  I didn't say "no activity = no sentience" was your opinion.  I said "the person is the sentient mind" is your opinion.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 1, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Yukon said:
> 
> 
> > You stupid pathetic ignorant excuse of humanity. Your Constipation is your LAW MAKER............ABORTION is legal.
> ...



Even women who must abort a viable fetus have privacy rights, you dick. This is legal in all 50 states, to save her life. 

The definition here that you need to understand is how one infringes upon a life of another, and how that affects the life in question. You never stop to think about the woman's life in any way other than if it is on the verge of being lost physically. Her social life, her emotional bonds with her family or church, her life as an abused woman, her life as an abandoned woman, her life as a teenager who was the victim of incest whose father tried to force her to remain in the basement, who ran away... the woman who worked her fingers to the bone and kept herself hidden from the world for 6 months, just to be rid of the condition of being pregnant, to preserve her reputation.. None of that life stuff matters to you. You do not cherish a woman's life as anything other than a bitch with a slice of cum toilet heaven between her legs who happens to have a pulse. You know NOTHING about LIFE, or how to treasure or honor it. When you DO realize that the FETUS infringes upon a woman's life, by barring her from promotions, by causing her to need more food than she can afford to buy and eat, by making her legs hurt and her stomach upset, and her body get fat and scarred for life.. By ruining her life because she SIMPLY is not ready to have the responsibility of even having something growing inside of her, or that although she was ready when she got pregnant, her situation changed immensely and she decided LATER that she could not go through with it- Get back with us, here in a little place known as the REAL WORLD. 

Til then fuck off.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 1, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1938509 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1940403 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
> ...



To YOU it's meaningless, because you're emotionally attached to what you consider "sentience".  What's missing in the braindead other than "the mind" is the rudimentary ability to self-govern, ie. to control any and all body functions.  In other words, what is missing in the braindead is LIFE, which is why they're called "brainDEAD".

And no, it's not that "dependence on machines is all".  A man with a bad heart has ONE malfunctioning organ.  He's still alive, his brain is still controlling body function and sending out directions, but his heart isn't responding properly to those directions.  In a braindead person, the organs are capable of acting on the directions, but no directions are being sent.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 1, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1940404 said:
			
		

> the 'person' is the sentient mind



Still your opinion.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Yukon said:


> Bern,
> 
> It doesnt matter......ABORTION is legal.


So was slavery.

What's your point?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939885 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Exactly, and we do not treat those things as people. The amount of protection given is roughly correlated with how much they resemble us in that regard. Noone cares about ants and fish, save for a few extremists, but dogs, apes, and dolphins are generally much more respected and revered for their superior intellectual abilities and, in the case of dogs, the usefulness which stems from it.

Again I ask you of extraterrestrials and sentient machines- why does it matter, what system the mind emerges from?


When the body dies, we lament because the minds as well. Oft, much of the tissue can be saved and even become part of another organism (eg: transplants). Nobody in their right mind claims that any part of the mind is transferred with the hand.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's the reality.

The person is the mind. We recognize that when the person dies, they are gone, even if every tissue save the brain which gave rise to the  ind in question could be saved.

If it was merely life that mattered, every cell would qualify. That would be utter absurdity.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1938509 said:
> ...


She did twice.


I did once.


Pay attention or get the fuck out of this classroom.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1940403 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Computers can self-govern their systems. Are they people?


If not, then you admit that your post is meaningless, for you the above are not the criteria you consider important.

Nor is it simply the state of being alive, or every cell and every amoeba would qualify.


----------



## Yukon (Feb 2, 2010)

*ABORTION is LEGAL ! Get over it .*


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966445 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



No She did not. She explained how blood passes through the placenta before it reaches the fetus. Tell us all how the fetus gets its own oxygen into it's blood, you fucking twits. 

The fetus gets oxygen from the mother's breathing it, and oxygenating the blood that travels to it. The oxygen does pass through the placenta, which diffuses some of the oxygen that is delivered to the fetus, but the placenta would not alone be sufficient to oxygenate the fetus' blood, if it stood alone, with no woman to breathe the fucking air. The placenta is an ORGAN which acts as a TRANSPORT system, just like the veins and arteries are parts of the circulatory system, which is also a transport system. The placenta works mostly as a stabilization system for both the fetus and the mother, by diffusing oxygen to the fetus and also diffusing hemoglobin and carbon dioxide to the mother, which is released by her by the act of exhaling. 
Also, the mother's blood does pool into a lake for the fetus's extremities, and this happens several times a minute, bringing oxygen to the fetus' capillaries.

I challenge y'all to show us all how the placenta makes it's own fucking oxygen. Show us how the placenta can deliver oxygen without the mother breathing air first, you fucks. It does NOT.

Transport Across the Placenta

Oh and look at how many instant biological changes happen the instant that a born baby takes a breath of air for the first time. 

The pulmonary resistance is dramatically reduced ("pulmo" is from the Latin for "lung"). More blood moves from the right atrium to the right ventricle and into the pulmonary arteries, and less flows through the foramen ovale to the left atrium. The blood from the lungs travels through the pulmonary veins to the left atrium, increasing the pressure there. The decreased right atrial pressure and the increased left atrial pressure pushes the septum primum against the septum secundum, closing the foramen ovale, which now becomes the fossa ovalis. This completes the separation of the circulatory system into two halves, the left and the right. The ductus arteriosus normally closes off within one or two days of birth, leaving behind the ligamentum arteriosum. The umbilical vein and the ductus venosus closes off within two to five days after birth, leaving behind the ligamentum teres and the ligamentum venosus of the liver respectively.


Also:



Fetus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A fetus is not a fucking person.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Now you're attacking me for pointing out that everything you just posted had to be explained to you _*3 TIMES*_ before you got it?


You were the one saying the mother's blood ran through the fetus, remember? Trying to 'correct' us by posting what we posted and pretending it's your position all of a sudden won't work.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

JD is not a human person.

Persons are sentient _and intelligent _beings.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1938509 said:
> ...



Since I've already done so at least twice, it's particularly amusing that YOU would dare to call anyone "stupid".  Go back and look it up, fool.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966440 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939885 said:
> ...



Actually, some we do and some we don't, but that's beside the point and rambling down a tangent.  A human doesn't stop being a human simply because his level of intelligence and brain function decrease, so he doesn't stop being a person, either.  Only when he is dead does he lose that designation . . . unless you have an emotional investment in the idea of sentience.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966440 said:
			
		

> The amount of protection given is roughly correlated with how much they resemble us in that regard. Noone cares about ants and fish, save for a few extremists, but dogs, apes, and dolphins are generally much more respected and revered for their superior intellectual abilities and, in the case of dogs, the usefulness which stems from it.



Irrelevant.  As we've both pointed out to Dog Girl, the question here is what the law SHOULD be, not what it is at the moment.  I still come down strictly on the side of measurable science, which gives us a choice of "alive or dead".  I don't waste time with fuzzy emotional dodges like "personhood", or "sentient", because I'm not trying to justify treating human life as disposable.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966440 said:
			
		

> Again I ask you of extraterrestrials and sentient machines- why does it matter, what system the mind emerges from?



And again I tell you that my worldview encompasses things I know to exist.  I don't waste time formulating worldviews for things that are, at the moment, wholly imaginary.  At such time as extraterrestrials or sentient machines show up and provide data upon which I can formulate an opinion, I'll have one.



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966440 said:
			
		

> When the body dies, we lament because the minds as well. Oft, much of the tissue can be saved and even become part of another organism (eg: transplants). Nobody in their right mind claims that any part of the mind is transferred with the hand.



No, YOU lament the mind.  I don't spend that much time parsing people into component parts.  

Transplants are also irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966443 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1939891 said:
> ...



Now you're starting to sound like Dog Girl, unable to differentiate between cells, tissue, and complete organisms.  I'm disappointed in you.

The person is the sum total of the living human organism.  A radical decrease of brain function down to the rudiments to sustain life is not death.  It's just radical brain damage.  Only a cessation of ALL self-governance and self-direction is death.

Asserting that sentience equals personhood over and over is not going to make it true.  I have no idea why you think it will.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1966448 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1940403 said:
> ...



Computers are not truly self-governing OR self-sustaining, and you know it.  Don't try to play games with me.

And I've already dealt with your descent into Dog Girl-territory, where you can't differentiate between cells and organisms.  I'm becoming really ashamed of you, because I expected better than lame, uneducated rationalization from you.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I remember your post, cocksucker- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post. 

Go ahead- tell the class how the fetus gets oxygen without the mother's breathing aiding in that. Go ahead, you fucking ****.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 2, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1967216 said:
			
		

> JD is not a human person.
> 
> Persons are sentient _and intelligent _beings.



Well, see, there you go.  JD is neither intelligent NOR sentient, and yet she IS a living human being, and therefore a person, albeit an incredibly stupid one who should be sterilized for the sake of protecting children and the gene pool.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1967216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sentient enough to recognize that you are a dripping green **** who cant make an argument for personhood of a fetus to save her own life, who is also willing to hurt her own children and children's girlfriends if they dare make the decision to not continue a pregnancy. Go ahead, queef some more green goo in my direction, ****.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> A human doesn't stop being a human simply because his level of intelligence and brain function decrease,



Red Herring. I never said an organism ceases to be genetically human.

However, when the mind ceases to exist, there is no 'personhood' or existent self within the body- no mind = no mind. A = A.

Being genetically human is not necessary for the emergence of a sentient and intelligent mind, therefore it is not necessary to be human to be treated as any other person- eg: theoretical extraterrestrials, sentient machines, or any new species which might evolve.

Neanderthals were not 'human' (H. Sapiens Sapiens), yet they were people by any reasonable definition of the word.


> No, YOU lament the mind.  I don't spend that much time parsing people into component parts.



Wrong. You focus only on the parts. The body is unimportant. Only the brain gives rise to the mind. To mourn an empty corpse, especially one with no organs (eg: the viewing/wake) is to worship something which was no part of the core of the person.



> Transplants are also irrelevant to the discussion.


Not when you keep arguing about the life of mere tissues.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> The person is the sum total of the living human organism.



Then a man would be less of a person when he lost part of that organism- eg: a soldier who loses his legs in combat - since part of the organism is lost and the whole is therefore less than it once was.


Your claims lead to absurdity.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...




Tell us how you get oxygen without plants making it for you. You're dependent on the rest of the biosphere, just as a fetus is dependent upon its own environment. 

We dealt with this a long time ago.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

She's human, but I no longer feel she should be treated as a person.

I swear I once had a dog who learned faster than JD does.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1967216 said:
> ...



Weren't you just crying about flames?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> The definition here that you need to understand is how one infringes upon a life of another, and how that affects the life in question. You never stop to think about the woman's life in any way other than if it is on the verge of being lost physically. Her social life, her emotional bonds with her family or church, her life as an abused woman, her life as an abandoned woman, her life as a teenager who was the victim of incest whose father tried to force her to remain in the basement, who ran away... the woman who worked her fingers to the bone and kept herself hidden from the world for 6 months, just to be rid of the condition of being pregnant, to preserve her reputation.. None of that life stuff matters to you. You do not cherish a woman's life as anything other than a bitch with a slice of cum toilet heaven between her legs who happens to have a pulse. You know NOTHING about LIFE, or how to treasure or honor it. When you DO realize that the FETUS infringes upon a woman's life, by barring her from promotions, by causing her to need more food than she can afford to buy and eat, by making her legs hurt and her stomach upset, and her body get fat and scarred for life.. By ruining her life because she SIMPLY is not ready to have the responsibility of even having something growing inside of her, or that although she was ready when she got pregnant, her situation changed immensely and she decided LATER that she could not go through with it- Get back with us, here in a little place known as the REAL WORLD.
> 
> Til then fuck off.



I hate again to have to boil things down to the bitter truth for you. EVERYTHING you mentioned there about why a woman should have the right to abort for whatever reason comes down to one thing and one thing only, CONVENIENCE. Your rant above proves that it is YOU that only thinks of one person when it comes to pregnancy. None of the above gives you the right to kill a person. It is you that is morally bankrupt, that would allow someone to reach that level of irresponsibility, when there are so many ways to keep it from getting to that point, and still find abortion legally and morally justifiable.

I agree that everything above comes with the territory of pregnancy and accuse all you like, I am a proponent of women's rights as much as the next person 'in the real world'. But when a pregnancy gets to the point where the possibility exists that you are choosing to kill another person over financial woes, fear, back pain, social life or fucking stretch marks, or how even being in the position of making that choice at that stage of a pregnancy requires a truly amazing level of irresponsibility, your rights and my sympathies for the burden of the pregnant woman go out the window. You call it women bashing. I call it not willing to condone and astounding lack of personal accountability.

I continue to enjoy you proclaiming to be something you so obviously aren't. You are in no position to presume anything of me. You know nothing of my life or how I have come to appreciate it. As for objectivity that you claim to have, the fuck you do. If YOU valued life, you would protect it.  ALL of it, not just those that are the most convenient for you. Objectively there is NO question that I value life for more than you do.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 2, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > The definition here that you need to understand is how one infringes upon a life of another, and how that affects the life in question. You never stop to think about the woman's life in any way other than if it is on the verge of being lost physically. Her social life, her emotional bonds with her family or church, her life as an abused woman, her life as an abandoned woman, her life as a teenager who was the victim of incest whose father tried to force her to remain in the basement, who ran away... the woman who worked her fingers to the bone and kept herself hidden from the world for 6 months, just to be rid of the condition of being pregnant, to preserve her reputation.. None of that life stuff matters to you. You do not cherish a woman's life as anything other than a bitch with a slice of cum toilet heaven between her legs who happens to have a pulse. You know NOTHING about LIFE, or how to treasure or honor it. When you DO realize that the FETUS infringes upon a woman's life, by barring her from promotions, by causing her to need more food than she can afford to buy and eat, by making her legs hurt and her stomach upset, and her body get fat and scarred for life.. By ruining her life because she SIMPLY is not ready to have the responsibility of even having something growing inside of her, or that although she was ready when she got pregnant, her situation changed immensely and she decided LATER that she could not go through with it- Get back with us, here in a little place known as the REAL WORLD.
> ...



YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person", assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU. What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT. 
I take it a step further and say that her heart might beat, but it will not be full of joy, if she had to spend 7 months saving the money to get the fucking abortion, for whatever reason. I say that if her heart beating is important, then so should her work, her home life, her other family, and her entire pursuit of happiness, which in fact includes her self image. YOU say that her heart remaining a beating organ is the only reason to "kill another person"- And I say you are an inconsistent pile of poo for failing to see that the RESULT of the abortion is the SAME either way. And yes- Late term abortions are often planned and CHOSEN, under the advice of a doctor. 



> I agree that everything above comes with the territory of pregnancy and accuse all you like, I am a proponent of women's rights as much as the next person 'in the real world'. But when a pregnancy gets to the point where the possibility exists that you are choosing to kill another person over financial woes, fear, back pain, social life or fucking stretch marks, or how even being in the position of making that choice at that stage of a pregnancy requires a truly amazing level of irresponsibility, your rights and my sympathies for the burden of the pregnant woman go out the window. You call it women bashing. I call it not willing to condone and astounding lack of personal accountability.



And being pregnant involves a certain risk- the risk of death during child birth, or in the late months. You would choose to kill another person just in case that woman's risk of death was a certain percentage, rather than seeing that personal accountability and assumed risks are all part and parcel to being pregnant. The reason why late term abortions are PLANNED is because YES it is a CHOICE. You freely allow women to make that choice based on FEAR alone. FEAR of death. Well, GEE. Don't you think that one person should not have to DIE just because another person is in fucking FEAR. Get real. You are NOT a proponent of women's rights. You are an overemotional fruitcake who simply wants to decide WHEN and HOW the "killing" of unborn "people" should be allowed. You fucking retard. 



> I continue to enjoy you proclaiming to be something you so obviously aren't. You are in no position to presume anything of me. You know nothing of my life or how I have come to appreciate it. As for objectivity that you claim to have, the fuck you do. If YOU valued life, you would protect it.  ALL of it, not just those that are the most convenient for you. Objectively there is NO question that I value life for more than you do.



I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective. 
I also look at the potential life of the baby-to-be, and whether things have changed enough in that woman's life to justify an abortion, morally. Now, again- I personally would not abort that late on just to avoid stretch marks, lol- I said that a million fucking times now, you huked on fonix halfwit- but that does not mean that another woman might not make a decision based on that, too, or based on the fear of tearing her vagina during childbirth, or having to get a C-section. I see it this way- if a woman who is 7 months pregnant has been getting abused by her husband or boyfriend or family, etc, and this only started when they saw her showing- which would indicate she was at 5 months, at least- then she should be allowed to schedule an abortion, just to stop being abused. YOU dont give a fuck about her. You don't care AT ALL about her situation. YOU have no understanding of the facts on abused pregnant women, nor do you care enough to open your mind up to them. And what about the woman who was 6 months pregnant and on some sort of life support caused by a car accident? You do realize that pulling the plug and ventilator tube out would be like murdering the fetus "person", as you say, because WHY SHOULD THE POOR INNOCENT LITTLE FETUSPERSON HAVE TO SUFFER??

How fucking retarded are you.   What a bunch of BS!!!!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 2, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus?



So vanity > the life of other people

Nice.


> How fucking retarded are you.   What a bunch of BS!!!!


----------



## MajikMyst (Feb 3, 2010)

Wow.. 62 pages later and the same two people are talking about the same thing.. 

A baby breathing.. Only now it appears to be what the baby is breathing.. I don't want to know..


Abortion is a tough issue.. There is no clear cut and dry solution or answer.. As for when life begins or when it becomes a person.. I belive that happens when the brain of the child begins to manage heart function on it's own.. I think that is around the 6 week mark.. When the child starts to have it's own functions seperate from the mother, it becomes a person.. Before that, it is just a group of cells and nothing more.. It is of no issue what it will become.. If that were an issue then none of us could eat eggs every again.. 

I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of Birth control.. Having said that, I think that teenagers should be allowed to have one as long as we are before the 6 week mark or the brain activity point.. Past that she must have the child and put it up for adoption.. Unless her parents opt to raise it as well.. I think strong emphasis should be put on birthcontrol.. Prevent the pregnancy.. 

In the cases of rape or incest.. Again, abortion is available up until the 6 week mark.. Beyond that she must have the baby and she can either keep it or put it up for adoption.. 

In the case of a life threatening situation.. Always save the mother!! If the child is of a viable age to save, then abort and make all attempts to save the child and the mother.. If not, then abort the child and save the mother.. If the mother dies then so does the baby.. So save one life at least.. 

That is pretty much how I see it.. I am on the fence when it comes to teenagers.. I believe they should have a way out, but also they need to pay for their mistake.. My wife's friends daughter's friend.. I hope you got that... Had a baby at 13.. Her mom is helping raise it.. But all dreams of going to college and stuff are gone.. The dad, 14 himself is already under court order to pay child support.. It is a screwed up situation.. Both of them were to young to understand the ramification of having sex.. And now, they have a baby and are facing adult issues.. I was playing pacman at 14.. I liked girls.. I just wasn't all that concerned about them.. 

It is just a tough issue..


----------



## JW Frogen (Feb 3, 2010)

I think we can all agree on this, the only sane solution to this problem is to allow all fetuses and Iranians aquire nuclear weapons and then let God sort it out.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Nice dodge, dumbass, but since that's not the position you took, you don't get to backtrack now and pretend that it was.  This is what you said, dunce, and you get to own it forevermore, just like your _piece de resistance _of dogs impregnating humans:

Just because a machine forces air into the lungs does not make it any different from a fetus, _whose oxygen is also FORCED into it's body _by means of the oxygenated blood pumped through the woman's veins first. 

And when I mocked you for saying that, you responded thus:

Explain to the class how the fetus gets oxygen into its own blood, then, you stupid cuntrag. 

So clearly, you were defending the idea that the mother's body pumps the fetus's blood for him.  And this is leaving entirely aside your ORIGINAL flight of genius, when you claimed outright that the mother and fetus share the same blood supply.

And am I supposed to be offended by your childish obscenities apparently accusing me of the "horrible crime" of having heterosexual sex?  As far as I'm concerned, that's fine with me, so long as I continue to choose cocks attached to men who aren't abusive losers, unlike some "women" around here.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1967216 said:
> ...



Well, I realize that I'm incapable of coming up with arguments like your "woman fucking a dog in Mexico and getting pregnant" brilliance, but I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread except you has understood my arguments perfectly well, whether they agree or not.

Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children?  Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale.  Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person" assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU.



Uh yeah. What's your point. I fail to see what you find some ass backwards about making such an exception. I have said for the hundredth time now, YOU MAKE THE BEST CHOICE POSSIBLE FOR ALL parties involved. If there is no way around the outcome that someone is going to die as a result of the pregnancy and only one can be saved, it is no more moral to save the mother over baby or vice versa hence a parental choice over who to save is perfectly morally justified.



JD_2B said:


> What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT.
> I take it a step further and say that her heart might beat, but it will not be full of joy, if she had to spend 7 months saving the money to get the fucking abortion, for whatever reason. I say that if her heart beating is important, then so should her work, her home life, her other family, and her entire pursuit of happiness, which in fact includes her self image. YOU say that her heart remaining a beating organ is the only reason to "kill another person"- And I say you are an inconsistent pile of poo for failing to see that the RESULT of the abortion is the SAME either way. And yes- Late term abortions are often planned and CHOSEN, under the advice of a doctor.



What is sad is that you can't see the difference between an immoral choice and a moral one. Killing because you're worried about your fucking career is immoral. Choosing to end a life for the purpose of saving another is not. That's the fucking difference.







JD_2B said:


> I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective.
> I also look at the potential life of the baby-to-be, and whether things have changed enough in that woman's life to justify an abortion, morally. Now, again- I personally would not abort that late on just to avoid stretch marks, lol- I said that a million fucking times now, you huked on fonix halfwit- but that does not mean that another woman might not make a decision based on that, too, or based on the fear of tearing her vagina during childbirth, or having to get a C-section. I see it this way- if a woman who is 7 months pregnant has been getting abused by her husband or boyfriend or family, etc, and this only started when they saw her showing- which would indicate she was at 5 months, at least- then she should be allowed to schedule an abortion, just to stop being abused. YOU dont give a fuck about her. You don't care AT ALL about her situation. YOU have no understanding of the facts on abused pregnant women, nor do you care enough to open your mind up to them. And what about the woman who was 6 months pregnant and on some sort of life support caused by a car accident? You do realize that pulling the plug and ventilator tube out would be like murdering the fetus "person", as you say, because WHY SHOULD THE POOR INNOCENT LITTLE FETUSPERSON HAVE TO SUFFER??



What you don't seem to get is that subconsciously or otherwise a women is aware of all of those things, well before a pregnancy gets to the point where said fears and resulting abortion could constitute killing a person. I have no problem with a woman alleviating all of those fears by not having sex, having protected sex, taking the morning after pill, or having an abortion a couple of months into the pregnancy. After that, any decision to abort based on fears about your job, financial position, social life, c-sections, vaginal tears, etc. is a simply morally bankrupt decision because a person, whether they choose to admit it or not, is aware of all of those risks before they even sex, let alone 7 months into a pregnancy. Aborting at that point in time for those reasons isn't protecting life. It's protecting your own selfish, irresponsible ass and no one elses. And that is not an emotional argument. There is simply no other way to characterize having an abortion to protect your career at that stage of pregnancy.

There is no logical argument why an abortion done for those reasons at that stage _shouldn't_ be illegal. You are killing a person for immoral reasons. Either explain why that is legally justifiable or why that is a false statement. And if your gonna choose the later, please for once attempt to use accepted definitions of terms rather than the JD definitions you are so fond of using.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1969664 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus?
> ...



My God, but you are a troll. You can't even keep up with your own arguments on personhood, freak boy. 

Is the philosophy of personhood not vain in and of itself?? LMAO!!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

Main Entry: *vane* 
Pronunciation: \&#712;v&#257;n\
Function:  _noun_ 
Etymology:  Middle English (southern dial.), from Old English _fana_ banner;  akin to Old High German _fano_ cloth, Latin _pannus_  cloth, rag
Date: 14th century
*1 a* *:* a movable device attached to an elevated object (as a  spire) for showing the direction of the wind *b* *:*  one that is changeable or inconstant
*2* *:*  a thin flat or curved object that is rotated about an axis by a flow of  fluid or that rotates to cause a fluid to flow or that redirects a flow  of fluid <the vane_s_ of a windmill>
*3* *:* the web or flat expanded part of a feather  &#8212; see feather  illustration
*4* *:* a feather  fastened to the shaft near the nock of an arrow


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

MajikMyst said:


> Wow.. 62 pages later and the same two people are talking about the same thing..
> 
> A baby breathing.. Only now it appears to be what the baby is breathing.. I don't want to know..



AIR. Oxygen. Show us all how a fetus can get oxygen if the mother was to die, if not by breathing. Jesus. 




> Abortion is a tough issue.. There is no clear cut and dry solution or answer.. As for when life begins or when it becomes a person.. I belive that happens when the brain of the child begins to manage heart function on it's own.. I think that is around the 6 week mark.. When the child starts to have it's own functions seperate from the mother, it becomes a person.. Before that, it is just a group of cells and nothing more.. It is of no issue what it will become.. If that were an issue then none of us could eat eggs every again..



So you think that a 6 week embryo should be considered a person, which gives it Constitutional rights? So the right to not be miscarried, because, as a "person" at that stage, it would have the right to life. 
Sorry, but fetuses are not entitled to the body they reside in, just because some of you have an emotional reaction to the way it looks, and use bullshit arguments such as it having "separate functions from the mother". Honest to God, if a fetus had any real sentience whatsoever prior to birth, women would NEVER survive the pregnancy/ birthing process. Get real. 



> I don't believe that abortion should be used as a form of Birth control..



Abortion IS birth control. It is the solution we use to not give birth, when all other birth control options we have used, have failed us. Getting pregnant and choosing to end the pregnancy is BIRTH control, because it puts US in control of whether we give birth or not. This is all about family planning. Just because a woman happens to get pregnant unexpectedly, which happens to 50% of all women, worldwide, at least once in their lifetime, does not mean that she should suddenly become a fucking baby oven to appease some stupid asshole, and avoid being labeled as some sort of heinous, heartless cold blooded killer, the way we ALL are, as you can see, by lunatic extremists like Cecile and Proletarian. Look through the thread and see how many times they have both called me a non person/ non sentient organism, etc, BASED SOLELY on their emotionally overcharged feelings towards fetuses, and reactions to me being pro choice all the way to the moments just before birth. There is absolutely no respect for the woman involved with these fucking sick ass douchebags. They eminate nothing but hate and let their emotions rule the roost, rather than actually stepping back and looking it with any logic whatsoever. For some reason, I have a feeling you are somewhat similar, in certain respects, although you may not be as freakish as they are, or hate filled, LOL.. =) No offense to you intended there.. Take it with a grain of salt. 



> Having said that, I think that teenagers should be allowed to have one as long as we are before the 6 week mark or the brain activity point.. Past that she must have the child and put it up for adoption.. Unless her parents opt to raise it as well.. I think strong emphasis should be put on birthcontrol.. Prevent the pregnancy..



So Teenagers should be allowed to be in control of their bodies but not grown women??? 

What?????

PS- Not everyone can get birth control, and many teens will go without, because their parents drive them to the doctors office, carry the insurance cards, etc.. and will not allow them to be on birth control, because they feel that allowing their children on birth control is condoning the sexual behavior. 
Also- Good fucking luck getting people to ONLY abort while their pregnancy is still in the embryonic stage. Six weeks... You gotta be kidding me. Generally, the soonest the abortion can be done is a few weeks after the call is made to make the soonest available appointment, and that call is not made until after the person even finds out they are pregnant, which can generally be anywhere between 2 and 4 weeks gestation, if not 5 to 6 weeks already. You clearly have no clue how irrational and unreasonable that timeline is. 



> In the cases of rape or incest.. Again, abortion is available up until the 6 week mark.. Beyond that she must have the baby and she can either keep it or put it up for adoption..



She must have the fucking baby.. Yep I knew it. Women are nothing but cum toilets, who should only have control over their bodies if they are super young, or have been seriously and probably maliciously abused (let me guess- Your claim is that rape is only something that can happen with bruising being present, and saying no halfway through is simply not an appropriate claim to being raped, if the man doesn't stop when told to. Typical fucking male cheuvenist cretin.)



> In the case of a life threatening situation.. Always save the mother!! *If the child is of a viable age to save, then abort and make all attempts to save the child* and the mother.. If not, then abort the child and save the mother.. If the mother dies then so does the baby.. So save one life at least..



LMFAO!!!!

Fucking dumbass. Empty emotional rhetoric- AND obviously totally lacking in logic. See, but deep down, this shows that you would prefer to see the fetus or embryo aborted than to have to have any harm come to the woman, and feel guilty about it. 

<busts out in song>
Feeeeeelllllllliiiinnnnngssss nothing more than ffeeeeeeellllliiiinnnngggssss.... 



> That is pretty much how I see it.. I am on the fence when it comes to teenagers.. I believe they should have a way out, but also they need to pay for their mistake..



You sick twisted fuck. Now, you change your story, to say that teenagers should be the ones forced to birth, based on them being young and stupid and having sex??? OMFG aren't you the dope of the day. What is WRONG with you??? I mean, are you SERIOUS?????  Teenagers should pay the price, because why- Because you fucking hate teenagers??? I mean, what the fuck does them being TEENAGERS have ANYTHING to do with it???? WTF Chuck?????



> My wife's friends daughter's friend.. I hope you got that... Had a baby at 13.. Her mom is helping raise it.. But all dreams of going to college and stuff are gone.. The dad, 14 himself is already under court order to pay child support.. It is a screwed up situation.. Both of them were to young to understand the ramification of having sex.. And now, they have a baby and are facing adult issues.. I was playing pacman at 14.. I liked girls.. I just wasn't all that concerned about them..
> 
> It is just a tough issue..



And SO THEY SHOULD BE, right?? Because OMFG the teenage girl should have to PAY THE FUCKING PRICE and learn to KEEP HER LEGS CLOSED, but that poor teenage boy who pays child support.. poor thing!! You are one seriously demented fucking asshole.. Glad I am not your wife. She probably has a perpetual black eye, too. Sick dick..


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I remember your post, cocksucker- I do not need to go look through 60 pages of flame wars to look up your retarded ass post.
> ...




The fetus would not have ANY oxygen without the.... Fill in the blank .... 


MOTHER .... Breathing... Air. Air contains oxygen.. Oxygen ONLY goes to the fetus in this way, simply put. 

Oh and being a woman who sucks dick is fine- being a cocksucker is quite a different story, though. 
And being ABUSED is never the fault of the victim, you stupid fatass whore, especially when the victim does not sit around and take the fucking abuse. 
Speaking of taking abuse, why the hell haven't I added YOU to my ignore list?? You can't even concede that the fetus NEEDS the mother to get AIR. 

A baby does not need the mother to breathe for it to get air. And a baby/ other person who is on a ventilator is in a VERY SPECIAL position, because it is getting 1000 times better health care than most babies and other children and adults in the world. Being on a ventilator is not a fucking ENTITLEMENT. It is purely an emotional based attachment to an image of a human being, based on HOPE, that can be disconnected at any time!
Air for one who cannot breathe it, is not an ENTITLEMENT. It too can be disconnected at ANY time, whether it is by abortion, or by accident/ natural causes. 

Dumb bitch.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children?  Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale.  Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.



I never killed any of my children either, you stupid bitch. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius. 

PS- On the good mother scale, I would hardly call threatening my children with the "wrath of mom" that they "know oh so well", because you "would kill them" and "kill your sons girlfriends" for having an abortion- is anywhere close to giving you June Cleaver status, you psycho fuckstick.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

​


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I never killed any of my children either, you stupid bitch. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.



No, there's not. A = A.

Your offspring  = you children


to end a life = to kill


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

When JD posts, it's like








This is just for JD






JD did a lot of research on the subject


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Glad I am not your wife. .


I'm sure the feeling's mutual


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > YOU claim that a fetus is a person but if the woman's life is in danger, than it is okay to abort it. YES that is a legal and a moral justification for abortion, one that YOU make. You make the "exception" to "kill a person" assuming a third trimester fetus is a person, as long as it poses some risk of death to the woman. That is called justifying the abortion, legally. It is not ME who does this "oh lets make exceptions only for a certain type of threat"- That is YOU.
> ...



I make the choice. Got it. Oh and I hope that is crystal clear to YOU, as well. I make the choice. MY choice. Not your choice.. MINE. 



> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What is your moral justification for forcing a woman to bring a fetus to full term, even if that means that she will lose a promotion she has been working her ass off for five years to achieve? What is YOUR moral justification that stretch marks and weight gain and any other "shallow" issues she might have, should suddenly be considered second rate to the contents of HER uterus? Why on earth would one reason to abort, and in your opinion, criminalize a woman for murder or manslaughter, all because she CHOSE to do it for a different reason than YOU would choose, be at all immoral? Just because YOUR choice would be for a different RATIONALE than hers, does not make THE RESULT of the decision any different. You say a late term fetus is a person, but you justify in killing that "person", for a certain standard- HER HEARTBEAT.
> ...



Prove that killing happens. It does not.. no more than killing a TREE happens, when we cut one down. 

Killing is PLENTY moral. People work very hard and support plenty of causes that support killing, as a result of unprotected sex. Killing cervical cancer, caused by HPV, which generally results in a person having to lose or leave their jobs to care for the sickness.. killing the HIV virus, which eventually causes AIDS, which in turn will generally lose one their job... Killing STDs and Tumors, to avoid getting even semi-sick and losing one's job... 

Even Killing moles before they become cancerous, which could cause a lot of days out, and losing one's job.... Killing sperm cells and egg cells before they get the chance to unite. Killing bacteria on hard surfaces, to avoid too many sick days and losing ones job.. Killing the "bad guys" on the streets.. Killing is absolutely a moral standard for maintaining one's job in any other situation where killing is a prerequisite. 

You only want to apply "to save one's life" when there is an immediate threat, and never EVER stop to consider that the threat to ones life might not be immediate, but a long term issue. 




> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I strongly disagree. I believe that I have far more compassion for a person's life, and I look at things objectively, from a long term perspective.
> ...



You have yet to prove or even bring up a shred of evidence that a fetus is a person.. moving right along... 

FEEEEEELLLLINNNNGGGSSSS.. nothing more than FEEEEEEEEELLLLIIIIINNNGGGSSSS.... blah blah blabbity blah. Get a hold of yourself. 



> I have no problem with a woman alleviating all of those fears by not having sex, having protected sex, taking the morning after pill, or having an abortion a couple of months into the pregnancy. After that, any decision to abort based on fears about your job, financial position, social life, c-sections, vaginal tears, etc. is a simply morally bankrupt decision because a person, whether they choose to admit it or not, is aware of all of those risks before they even sex, let alone 7 months into a pregnancy. Aborting at that point in time for those reasons isn't protecting life. It's protecting your own selfish, irresponsible ass and no one elses. And that is not an emotional argument. There is simply no other way to characterize having an abortion to protect your career at that stage of pregnancy.



What happens that makes a human so much different between the 2nd month and the 7th? It is still prone to miscarry by all of the same things that the 7 week embryo or third month fetus. Neither are people. Neither have any real sentience, or the woman would never survive the pregnancy, much less childbirth. 
Sorry, honey, but choosing to do a late term abortion is FOR the woman to keep her job intact. It is so that the woman does not end up sick in the hospital for a week, or having heart failure, which would cause her to miss time at work. If her life wasn't so fucking important, then why the fuck would she care so much about keeping it intact?? Good grief- you do realize that the sanctity of LIFE as a whole entails far more than having a beating heart and active brain waves, do you not? You do realize that there are interactions and relationships, responsibilities that these people have outside of what is going on in the uterus, right??? 

Be real, now- how many dirty, disease ridden vagrants are going to be admitted to the hospital for a heart attack and kept on life support for any amount of time? They don't because they are not as important in society. Their relationships and interactions are less than appealing. They are second class citizens, to be blunt, and nobody really gives a rats ass about them. They would NOT have a ventilator in their lungs for any period of time. When nobody wants you, you are ALLOWED to be let go. Letting GO is OKAY, too. It is perfectly natural to die. There is no entitlement to live. And, sorry but saying those things might be reality and might hurt your feelings to have to face, but that is how it is. That is not immoral, or amoral. That is how our emotional human race WORKS, sociologically. 
If you had feelings for TREES, you would be laying down in front of bulldozers and logging trucks, to try to slow the process down. You just don't happen to have feelings for trees.. But by definition, they are "life". They are "living", and as such, they are "Alive", in many of the same respects as an embryo. They just look a whole lot different, and have different DNA, and no potential to hold your hand, or smile at you, or evoke those same emotional feelings you have towards other humans. 



> There is no logical argument why an abortion done for those reasons at that stage _shouldn't_ be illegal. You are killing a person for immoral reasons. Either explain why that is legally justifiable or why that is a false statement. And if your gonna choose the later, please for once attempt to use accepted definitions of terms rather than the JD definitions you are so fond of using.



Number one- try to spell latter right, for once in your life, before you start lecturing me about defining terms, k??

And again- prove or at least give some evidence that a fetus is a person., before you start using all that bullshit emotional hyperbole on here. =)


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 3, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972981 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I never killed any of my children either, you stupid bitch. I had an abortion. VERY big difference, there, genius.
> ...



Awww poor baby. Stop killing billions of sperm every time you have sex with yourself, then you dumb fuck. 

PS- Offspring are those that are BORN, not those that are conceived. Or else a woman with 5 failed pregnancies would have 5 offspring that died. Nope, that doen't sound quite right to me.. GEE I wonder why..


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



One can only laugh at your continued hypocrisy JD. You accuse people of emotional rhetoric yet can't manage to end a paragraph without some juvenile insult. It is YOU that doesn't have the proverbial balls to admit what you are.

You can't admit that you communicate at the level of the avg. junior high student. 

You can't admit that you use words outside of their meaning because you are at loss for any other way to rationalize your position.

You can't admit to being the hypocrite that you so clearly have demonstrated to be.

You can't admit to the any of the fallacies of your logic.

You can't even separate the issues, your emotion, and basic concepts of argumentation. The truth is lost to people like you. You are so heavily invested in maintaining your position that you couldn't admit the truth was something different from that position if it smacked you in the face. Your ego won't allow you to admit your wrong at this point. Do you have the ability to objectively look at yourself? YOU are the insult leader on this thread. I can't imagine someone who claims they are objective and rationale stooping to that level and having the capacity to take it all back once they found out the truth. You are 32 fucking years old. For your child's sake, grow the fuck up.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, and you accusing me of hurting my children?  Funny, considering that I'VE never killed any of my children, so I think I have you beaten on the "good mother" scale.  Of course, Joan Crawford would beat you on that scale, because she didn't kill any of HERS, either.
> ...



Only difference is whether or not your pitiful intellect would have been sufficient to know that you'd killed your baby.  Not my fault you're too pig-ignorant.



JD_2B said:


> PS- On the good mother scale, I would hardly call threatening my children with the "wrath of mom" that they "know oh so well", because you "would kill them" and "kill your sons girlfriends" for having an abortion- is anywhere close to giving you June Cleaver status, you psycho fuckstick.



On the good mother scale, I would hardly call imposing a mother as stupid as you on a child good, and you do get dumber by the post, don't you?  It was someone ELSE who mentioned the "wrath of mom", loser-humper.  It was the same person who mentioned her son's girlfriends.  I've hardly mentioned my actual family at all in this thread (and neither of my sons are old enough to have girlfriends), and that in only the most vague terms.  The most direct I've been on that subject, in fact, involved a hypothetical with a 13-year-old daughter I don't even HAVE.

I honestly don't know which would be better for your poor spawn:  to take after his ignorant slattern of a mother, or the piss-poor drunken batterer she spread her legs for.  I DO know I feel sorry for him either way.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A woman who had five miscarriages DOES have five children who died, as any woman so unlucky would tell you, if she could bring herself to talk to you without spitting.  I'm sorry this is so difficult to understand for a woman who hates her own femaleness so badly, but MOST women actually love their unborn children and want them and mourn them when they have a miscarriage, rather than viewing them as a horrible curse imposed on them by an unfair universe.

It must suck to be at war with your own biology.  Of course, it must suck to have a room-temperature IQ and think the dog can impregnate you, too.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> Prove that killing happens. It does not.. no more than killing a TREE happens, when we cut one down.




http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/stoned.jpg






Can you really be that stupid?




> You have yet to prove or even bring up a shred of evidence that a fetus  is a person..



Fail.


It's been shown time and again that a sufficiently developed fetus meets all criteria for any reasonable definition of 'person'. You just evade the issue by defining a fetus a non-person then declaring victory because you can't defend your acts or position in an honest manner.


> FEEEEEELLLLINNNNGGGSSSS.. nothing more than  FEEEEEEEEELLLLIIIIINNNGGGSSSS.... blah blah blabbity blah. Get a hold of  yourself.



Grab a mirror.


> What happens that makes a human so much different between the 2nd month  and the 7th?



Go read my numerous posts.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 3, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972981 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






You said to prove killing occured, and now you have admitted that to be the case.


You killed your child. And you are no longer able to claim otherwise, though you'll try because, deep down, you can't face what you've done.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> It must suck to be at war with your own biology


It does.


I loathe my metabolism


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 4, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Admit fucking WHAT??? You continuously ignore any and all medical journal documents given to you, on the basis that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and are too fucking lazy to use a dictionary to look a word up, so therefore the journals mean nothing to you, in comparison to what your "gut" tells you. You base your entire argument of personhood on your GUT, which is anything BUT being objective. And yeah I end all of my posts with insults at the end, because every time someone responds to my posts, they do not even attempt to debate the issue, they attempt to debate ME, which is absolutely not the fucking issue! Why should I be called less than a person or be told constantly that my life means nothing BASED SOLELY ON MY BELIEFS ABOUT LATE TERM ABORTION??? Fucking overemotional ignorant pieces of shit- Fuck off!!!


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1973129 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1972981 said:
> ...



You stupid fucking troll. That was sarcasm, dipshit.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 4, 2010)

That's it. You three are all nothing but ignorant fucking TROLLS and you are all being added to my ignore list. Maybe one day, I can have a decent conversation with someone who is not such a flaming psychotic piece of ignorant shit, to the extent of ignoring medical journals out of piss poor intelligence and a complete lack of reading comprehension skills, and responding only with "Well you are a dummy" or "No you are too stupid to say anything but that, sorry, ya baby killer!" And other such retarded ass comments. 

62 pages and not ONE of you has shown a shred of evidence that a fetus is a person. Congratulations on being the biggest losers EVER. Ignored. Forever. And this time- I am putting my foot down.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> You continuously ignore any and all medical journal documents given to you, on the basis that you have piss poor reading comprehension skills and are too fucking lazy to use a dictionary to look a word up, so therefore the journals mean nothing to you, in comparison to what your "gut" tells you. You base your entire argument of personhood on your GUT, which is anything BUT being objective.








​


> Fucking overemotional ignorant pieces of shit- Fuck off!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1973131 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > It must suck to be at war with your own biology
> ...



Now can you imagine if you hated and despised your own sex and role in procreation?  I think it's a wonder that JD hasn't either killed herself or had sex reassignment surgery, she hates being female so much.  At the very least, you'd think she'd have that uterus she finds so repulsive removed.

I'd pity her, if she didn't work so hard to make herself a contemptuous object of ridicule.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 4, 2010)

Just coming in with my 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




: Albeit I voted for the just during the first trimester or whatever it was, the RvW decision protects one's privacy. This means basically that the decision rests between the woman and her doctor; this is the way it should be. Do I think elective abortion not based on issues surrounding the health of the mother or the unborn child may be an example of just killing one's infant for one's own convenience? Of course. Is it up to me, you or anyone else to judge? Absolutely not. Why? Because it's her body, that's why. Neither you, I, nor anyone else has a right to dictate to another what they are or are not to do with their own body. Period. End of sentence. You get to STFU. This is the ultimate illustration of honoring someone else's property rights. One's body belongs to no one but one's own self.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Just coming in with my
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, lord.  Another one who thinks warm, fuzzy, "nice" feelings can replace science, logic, and basic thought, AND doesn't think it's necessary to read any of the thread before jumping in with her 1/2-cent worth.

Trust me, we really weren't in need of another "I know nothing about basic biology, this just feels good" opinion.  Been there, mocked that, moved on.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Just coming in with my
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fully agreed. You can do whatever the fuck you what to yourself UNTIL your decisions negatively effect others. The above argument is made countless times, but it only works under the assumption that an unborn child is somehow less than human, alive or a person. No one as yet has explained with any sufficieny what is so magical about that moment of birth that it is logical to grant all these rights and protections to the child immediately after that point, but not immediately before. Yet doing just that is the only way the above argument has any merit. You either have to explain why an unborn should never be legally protected or explain why a woman's choice she be defended legally even if it means killing another person.

We have become used to some argumentative cliches that need to be debunked. Things like no one is better than anyone else. Well I hate again to be the barer of the bitter truth, but yes some people are better than other people as a result of the decisions they have made. And the one cliche you use, that judging people's choices is not an option in a debate. THE FUCK IT'S NOT. Everyone, including yourself, judge people every day. Having an opinion, which is basically what judging is, is involuntary. The only thing in question is the accuracy of that opinion. Was there enough information present about the situation for the opinion/judgement to be valid? In JD's case I believe there is all kinds of evidence provided by here own words to warrant accurate judgments that she is an irresponsible, immature, hypocrite.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> That's it. You three are all nothing but ignorant fucking TROLLS and you are all being added to my ignore list. Maybe one day, I can have a decent conversation with someone who is not such a flaming psychotic piece of ignorant shit, to the extent of ignoring medical journals out of piss poor intelligence and a complete lack of reading comprehension skills, and responding only with "Well you are a dummy" or "No you are too stupid to say anything but that, sorry, ya baby killer!" And other such retarded ass comments.
> 
> 62 pages and not ONE of you has shown a shred of evidence that a fetus is a person. Congratulations on being the biggest losers EVER. Ignored. Forever. And this time- I am putting my foot down.



if you really were capable of the objectivity you claim to be, you would have exercised a little objective introspection a long time ago and this post would never have been made. Objective people seek the truth. YOU seek to rationalize your opinion. Which you do by claiming evidence you don't have, improperly using terms to define your position, and being the biggest personal attacker of anyone who has posted in this thread. Those are the OBJECTIVE facts. Yet you have the balls to accuse people here of not engaging in intelligent debate and lacking objectivity all because you don't have the integrity to admit that your position lacks any objectively rationale merit.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1973131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe we should start  a fund to help her get a hysterectomy?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Just coming in with my
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another organism is not your body.


By definition.


Such is a fact.


Ask any biologist.


Nice try, but if she's going to call in a wingwoman, she should try calling one with a brain.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 4, 2010)

Okay, I see that there are some posters in here who believe in taking complete charge of someone else's body, as this is exactly what one is doing when one forces another to give birth.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 4, 2010)

I thought Poe was dead?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1975257 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1973131 said:
> ...



Now THAT is a community action project I can get behind.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1975267 said:
			
		

> bobbcat said:
> 
> 
> > Just coming in with my
> ...



As if anyone with a brain would want to come in on JD's side after she's made such an utter fool and laughingstock of herself.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Okay, I see that there are some posters in here who believe in taking complete charge of someone else's body, as this is exactly what one is doing when one forces another to give birth.



And if we had been talking about raping someone, perhaps that would be relevant, since that's the only way for us to "force" someone to give birth.

It didn't take very many pages to reveal JD as the blithering, slobbering, illiterate fool that she is.  I wonder how many it'll take you?  I'm betting less than two.

By all means, Buffy, DO show us some scientific evidence to support your claim that a fetus is part of the mother's body.  I need some amusement, and watching you chimps dance is usually good for a laugh.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Just coming in with my
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well said. 

My whole thing on it is that abortion in each and every term, first middle and late, is a private medical procedure, and should not be criminalized, no matter how late term it is done, or for whom or what social reason they might use to rationalize that medical procedure. It does not matter that some people have certain feelings and psychological responses to the decision or basis thereof. Abortion, like any other medical procedure, concerns only her and the medical doctor performing it- nobody else. 

I have these guys (Cecile, Bern and Pro) on my ignore list, LMAO- so whatever crazed insults they are hurling my way are no longer a concern to me. 

Thank you for chiming in. Your two cents are worth far more than a couple of pennies, to women's rights, at least. =)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 4, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> bobbcat said:
> 
> 
> > Just coming in with my
> ...



Didn't this ignorant trollop storm off with her thong in a twist, vowing never to return?  Worse than bad Mexican food for repeating on you, I swear.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 4, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Okay, I see that there are some posters in here who believe in taking complete charge of someone else's body, as this is exactly what one is doing when one forces another to give birth.



Then you 'see' incorrectly and it shows in that you won't directly explain the apparent contradictions of that opiinion. Wouldn't you have to admit at the very least that you also want complete control over another's body (the unborn childs) to do with as you will including kill it?


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 5, 2010)

> Your two cents are worth far more than a couple of pennies, to women's rights, at least. =)


Thank you, but I see here (particularly with regard to some of the other responses) that I should elaborate. I don't mince words when I say that whenever abortion takes place, it is an example of taking another's life. IMO, where the battle against elective abortion (where the health of the mother and unborn child are not at stake) should be fought is in the arena of the hearts and minds of the women who face unwanted pregnancy. It is wrong to take an unwanted unborn child's life merely for reasons of convenience ('I cannot afford to have the baby,' 'I am not in love with the baby's father anymore,' etc.). However, it is not up to anyone else to sit in judgement. It is also wrong to overtake other people's bodies in an effort to make them do the right thing. Some things, this issue included, should be judged by a higher power. If there is a price to be paid for killing one's own unborn child when life and health are not at stake for either, it will be ultimately paid. JMO. There are ways to cope with the unwanted pregnancy (free prenatal, delivery, postnatal care in exchange for putting the child up for adoption-this arrangement is available everywhere in the US), and women should be made aware of options other than having the elective abortion procedure.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 5, 2010)

You say it's not for anyone to judge, yet you judge it as wrong in the very same post.


Of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when I break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.

You keep telling yourself that that.

Sane people support intervening in homicide and stopping it.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 5, 2010)

> Of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when I break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.


Bad analogy if I ever saw one. You are right though about the use of 'judge' in this context. I should have used instead the term 'intervene.' 

Interesting that you overlook how the rates of elective abortion could be reduced other than outlawing the procedure (education, pregnancy counseling, etc.). I wonder too if you overlook the notion that outlawing elective abortion will do nothing at all to stop women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies from doing so.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> I wonder too if you overlook the notion that outlawing elective abortion will do nothing at all to stop women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies from doing so.


Go read the thread.

Outlawing rape didn't stop all rapes.

You have argued for legalize rape on the same grounds, using the exact same argument you use for abortion.

How can you people be so stupid?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1977721 said:
			
		

> You say it's not for anyone to judge, yet you judge it as wrong in the very same post.
> 
> 
> Of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when I break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.
> ...



Proletarian, the contradiction is in your analysis of bobbcat's statement.  She was consistent and inherently logical in her statement.  You, on the other hand, create an apples and oranges contradiction by extending the situation to rape, torture, and murder.  I though you demonstrated a sense of emotional unbalance in another thread.  I know now, based on your post above, you are not a stable personality.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 5, 2010)

Her argument:

Making _x_ illegal did not stop all instances of _x_


> outlawing elective abortion will do nothing at all to stop women who are  determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies from doing so.



She forwarded this as an argument against making abortion illegal.

The exact same argument applies equally to all crimes.

That is logic.

She supports legalizing rape because outlawing rape will do nothing at all to stop who are  determined to rape from doing so.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 5, 2010)

> How can you people be so stupid?


Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 5, 2010)

Try cracking open a dictionary sometime.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Feb 5, 2010)

Proletarian proves bobbcat's thesis and demonstrates my observation: cracked.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 5, 2010)

Nothing like spewing potty-mouthed drivel in lieu of a 'debate' to illustrate an utter failure to forge a reasonable argument. 

You need to grow up, prole.

Edited to say thanks to mod for removing prole's unnecessary, profanity-laced flame from above.


----------



## JenT (Feb 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > bobbcat said:
> ...





okay but if we haven't all done that, we've felt like it before...


----------



## ItHappens (Feb 5, 2010)

Personally I think abortion is repulsive.
However it's been legal for 30 years.  Preverbial cat out of the bag so to speak.  I don't think illegal abortion would stop abortion.  That's really pro-life people should be focused on  - stopping abortion, legal or otherwise.   A change of heart is needed for that.  
In the case of later term, where a child is proven viable (24 weeks stage give or take a week or two) abortion should be illegal.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > Of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when I break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.
> 
> 
> Bad analogy if I ever saw one. You are right though about the use of 'judge' in this context. I should have used instead the term 'intervene.'
> ...



If outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > How can you people be so stupid?
> 
> 
> Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.



Prole is actually okay on agreeing to disagree, so long as your disagreement isn't predicated on ridiculous notions.  And I'm sorry, but "Outlawing things does nothing to stop them" is ridiculous.  So is "abortion is just about the woman's body", or "abortion is different from other behaviors", as though pregnant women aren't susceptible to the same cause-and-effect that every other human is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



No, I can't say that I've ever felt like having a melodramatic, adolescent flounce out of a thread, vowing never to return.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > How can you people be so stupid?
> 
> 
> Why can't you just agree to disagree? Instead of resorting to an ad hominem attack, why not explain to me just what is wrong with the approach I have pointed to above? You really think that outlawing the elective abortion procedure is going to do any good? Again, this is an issue that concerns one's own body. Homicide and rape do not figure into this in any way, shape, matter or form. Oh, and I said nothing at all about rape; don't put words in my mouth.



Exactly what I spent 60+ pages dealing with on this thread alone, before finally putting him on ignore, lol.. 

The extremists on this thread will of course threaten your life just the way proletarian did to you- as a means of comparing a born person being tortured, raped and killed to a born person ending a pregnancy by choice. 

This is just one in a zillion examples of the illogical, meaningless emotional hyperbole used by the psychotic antis in this thread. 

Oh and just you wait- they will start calling you non sentient and a bad parent with neglected or abused kids, just because you advocate for decriminalizing late term abortions too. And this will be from the very person who claims she would hurt her own children and their girlfriends, should any of her son's girlfriends attempt to abort. 

They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman..  And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > Your two cents are worth far more than a couple of pennies, to women's rights, at least. =)
> 
> 
> Thank you, but I see here (particularly with regard to some of the other responses) that I should elaborate. I don't mince words when I say that whenever abortion takes place, it is an example of taking another's life. IMO, where the battle against elective abortion (where the health of the mother and unborn child are not at stake) should be fought is in the arena of the hearts and minds of the women who face unwanted pregnancy. It is wrong to take an unwanted unborn child's life merely for reasons of convenience ('I cannot afford to have the baby,' 'I am not in love with the baby's father anymore,' etc.). However, it is not up to anyone else to sit in judgement. It is also wrong to overtake other people's bodies in an effort to make them do the right thing. Some things, this issue included, should be judged by a higher power. If there is a price to be paid for killing one's own unborn child when life and health are not at stake for either, it will be ultimately paid. JMO. There are ways to cope with the unwanted pregnancy (free prenatal, delivery, postnatal care in exchange for putting the child up for adoption-this arrangement is available everywhere in the US), and women should be made aware of options other than having the elective abortion procedure.



See this is why this issue isn't something where people agree to disagree. I can see that in discussions where people have opposing opinions and neither one of them can be defined as right or wrong. That isn't the case here. JD's arguments and yours have holes and contradictions in them and I can't see the above position than anything other than a contradiction.  Let's see if you're a bit more open minded than JD:

You acknowledge that abortion is taking another's life.

You argue that no one else should have control over the choices an individual makes with regard to their own bodies.

So if you acknowledge that abortion is taking ANOTHER'S life, how is this about what pregnant women do to themselves?

if you are for the personal freedom to make your own choices about your body, how do you reconcile that with not giving ANOTHER life the choice to live?


----------



## JenT (Feb 5, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Really? Melodrama rocks, so does flouncing, adolescent or otherwise


----------



## JenT (Feb 5, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> bobbcat said:
> 
> 
> > > How can you people be so stupid?
> ...



Somebody threatened your life? 

Who called you non-sentient and a bad parent?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JenT said:
> ...



Turns out that when you hit a certain age, you just don't have the energy left for that crap.  Who knew?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 5, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > bobbcat said:
> ...



For the record, Prole and I had a discussion about whether her lack of sentience made her a non-person, so that would be both of us.  I know I consider her the poster child for bad parenting for exactly the reason that killing one of your children is an epic fail in the parenting department.  No one ever threatened her life, though.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 5, 2010)

> if you are for the personal freedom to make your own choices about your body, how do you reconcile that with not giving ANOTHER life the choice to live?


By the mere fact that it is not a choice I would ever make. I cannot make that choice for another woman, however. Again, regardless of the law, women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies are going to do so. Far better it be for women to grow up with a strong sense of personal responsibility and a strong support system that prompts them not to seek the elective abortion procedure as a means to cope with the dilemma of the unwanted pregnancy.





> If outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?


Some people are not deterred one bit by the fact that something is against the law. Elective abortion is not against the law, so not sure why you are comparing it to things which are against the law.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 5, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> By the mere fact that it is not a choice I would ever make. I cannot make that choice for another woman, however. Again, regardless of the law, women who are determined to terminate their unwanted pregnancies are going to do so. Far better it be for women to grow up with a strong sense of personal responsibility and a strong support system that prompts them not to seek the elective abortion procedure as a means to cope with the dilemma of the unwanted pregnancy.



That answer doesn't reconcile the issue with your position. Forget about the subject matter for a second. You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice. 

You didn't address the other contradiction either. That you said no one else should have control over the decisions one makes with regards to one's body. Well if an unborn baby is another life and it's body and you allow abortion you most certainly are allowing someone else to make decision that affect another's body.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Nothing like spewing potty-mouthed drivel in lieu of a 'debate' to illustrate an utter failure to forge a reasonable argument.
> 
> You need to grow up, prole.
> 
> Edited to say thanks to mod for removing prole's unnecessary, profanity-laced flame from above.




Everything you said (that is, every post of JD's you parroted) was refuted.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Didn't this ignorant trollop storm off with her thong in a twist, vowing never to return?  Worse than bad Mexican food for repeating on you, I swear.


Are you insulting my lunch?


The menudo wasn't _that_ old...


Okay, I lied, I had carne asada for lunch. They only have menudo on the weekends.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

cecilie1200 said:


> bobbcat said:
> 
> 
> > > of course, using your argument that it's 'not up to anyone else to sit in judgement' of a matter that's 'an example of taking another's life, it follows that it's for noone to judge or intervene when i break into your house, rape you for seven hours, cut open your belly, strew your intestines around the room while you're still alive, and finally cut your throat and watch you die.
> ...




legalize rape! Jb_2d and bobbcat agree!


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman..  And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!





Someone tell this bitch she's retarded. I've said the same thing to male posters on this very forum in the past.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

JenT said:


> I would have to say aborting a child sorta seems like a fail in parenting


----------



## JenT (Feb 6, 2010)

Thanks but I deleted it 

I seriously don't mean to criticize anyone that's had an abortion. I think anyone that has, has been taught to look at it in a way that makes it seem okay. I think a lot of women are suffering under the burden of it even if on the surface they deny the reality of it.I've had that choice offered to me and in a way, I was weak in that even if I could logically try to believe what planned parenthood was pushing, I couldn't do it. Was that weakness? To not follow through what you try to logically reason out?

But it's that needling memory of ignoring the resistance that sorrows women. A woman could accept the error if she didn't remember that at the time, she knew not to, but did it anyway. I can't imagine anyone actually went through an abortion without a second thought, and it's that second thought that is like a monkey on their back constantly beating them up with the guilt. 

But we have ALL made mistakes. We've all done things we regret. It's why Christ came, to take on the mistakes that we've all made. The baby isn't suffering, he or she is secure in HIm. The only one suffering is the woman that was lied to and should have been supported in her hour of need. 

My argument is not with the woman that's been misled, but with the politician that makes a profit or a vote out of deceiving generations of women and promotes the continuation of genocide. I think we all need to watch out for women like Lois Capps, who used to be a school nurse that distributed glasses to the needy. Then she turns around and fights with everything she's got for abortion and I gotta wonder, was she handing out glasses to little kids thinking they never should have been born? What makes a woman do that? Sick.


----------



## Svarstaad (Feb 6, 2010)

. . .

The primary law is eloquent, and comprehensive.

*"Hurt nobody"*

DNA is the foundational basis of all life.  DNA serves an analogous purpose for human life as a radio receiver serves for discernment of coherent and intelligent information broadcast by means of radio frequencies.

When a radio receiver is turned off, the intelligent, coherent radio frequency information is still extant.

Just like radio frequency coherent and intelligent information, Life is everywhere; coherent and intelligent.  Without a "body" we cannot discern that coherency and intelligence.

Just like the coherent intelligence of radio frequencies that cannot be discerned until "tuned" with a "receiver" and manifested into discernible information through "speakers," DNA is the "receiver" that transmutes, (acts as a "conduit"), intelligent life into this physical dimension, to make that intelligent life discernible to our senses.

When life, a living soul, manifests itself through DNA, when did that life become a "living soul" to you?

I think that life was "alive" before the DNA was created, and is just as much "alive" when there are only one or two cells, with DNA, as when there are a trillion cells with DNA, which we recognize as a child or adult.

When do you apply the primary law, "Hurt Nobody?"

When you feel like it?

When you can get others to agree with you that it is o.k. to hurt somebody? does that really make it o.k.?

"Hurt nobody"

Just my thoughts about the matter.

. . .


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 6, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > bobbcat said:
> ...



I had an abortion when I was 18, but I am the proud parent of an 11 year old boy. 

I think Cecile and Proletarian were the main culprits when it comes to calling me a non sentient organism, and a bad parent, etc, all because either of my having an abortion (which Cecile is so against, she would admittedly hurt her own children/ children's girlfriend over) or my standing up to people who want to see women incarcerated and their bodies turned into evidence chambers, based on what time of their pregnancy they chose to end it, or miscarried. 
These people want fetuses to have rights. It is not just about abortion, then. Anyone who has a stillbirth could be imprisoned, based on them smoking, or being a lousy driver, or eating or drinking something that wasn't so good for them, or any number of stupid decisions that people make on a day to day basis. 

The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual. It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die. There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat. Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy. Fetuses should not have legal entitlements at all. People hate me for saying this- but I don't say it because I hate fetuses. I say it because I respect women too much to see them having to deal with legal problems over stillbirths that maybe could have been avoided. There is no way of knowing whether that stillbirth was the direct result of the woman's actions, or something that occurred for another reason that could not be helped. 
Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid, and whether that stupidity destroys their own fetus, or not, is totally irrelevant. It is the woman's body that she has control over. She is not sorry that she can't control the feelings of people who are overemotional about HER miscarriage or stillbirth, or sometimes, abortion. All she can control is her own body, and her own emotions. Why would anyone want to take any of that away from her?


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual. It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die. There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat. Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy. Fetuses should not have legal entitlements at all. People hate me for saying this- but I don't say it because I hate fetuses. I say it because I respect women too much to see them having to deal with legal problems over stillbirths that maybe could have been avoided. There is no way of knowing whether that stillbirth was the direct result of the woman's actions, or something that occurred for another reason that could not be helped.
> Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid, and whether that stupidity destroys their own fetus, or not, is totally irrelevant. It is the woman's body that she has control over. She is not sorry that she can't control the feelings of people who are overemotional about HER miscarriage or stillbirth, or sometimes, abortion. All she can control is her own body, and her own emotions. Why would anyone want to take any of that away from her?



Whether you are reading these or not again this position makes zero sense logically. The argument in the first couple of sentences that essentially abortion is justified because of the fetus' level of dependence on the mother. The problem is that level of dependence barely changes from pre-birth to post. The reality remains after birth that without someone's care there is no gauruntee the baby will survive. In fact without care post birth it will also die. You make the arguments that someone will take over for the mother. That's just wishful thinking an also no garuntee. The new born child's high level of dependence is the same. The needs of the child are now simply meat in different forms. I just make doesn't make any sense that that distinction justfies abortion on one hand but not another.

You have respect for women? Then you ought to have enough respect for them and yourself to hold them to a higher standard. Not one where you have to remain incredibly ignorant an irresponsible for the decision to abort to get to that point in pregnancy.

We control people's bodies all the time......when they behave in ways that negatively effect others. We all understand how you have qualified fetus' to make your rationalization. Unfortunately it is simply a false argument. You argue the dependence of the child is the justification yet this level of dependence doesn't change. It seems to be that since the child is and can be dependent only on one person is what justifies abortion in your eyes, but for the life of me I don't see how that is logical either. Your position is confusing because you don't stick to one rationale. First it's because fetus is not a person, despite that the dictionary tacitly says it is. Then it's dependence but that doesn't really work either for the reasons above.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 6, 2010)

> You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.


What I recognize is that, yes, the right of the woman to have choice does indeed override the unborn child's choice to stay alive. If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose. Rest assured though that there are cases where women seek the procedure for reasons other than birth control, such as genetic anomalies, health issues, complications of pregnancy. How nice it would be if physicians who perform the procedure stuck to just those cases. I would very much like to see that happen.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.
> 
> 
> What I recognize is that, yes, the right of the woman to have choice does indeed override the unborn child's choice to stay alive. If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose. Rest assured though that there are cases where women seek the procedure for reasons other than birth control, such as genetic anomalies, health issues, complications of pregnancy. How nice it would be if physicians who perform the procedure stuck to just those cases. I would very much like to see that happen.



Then we agree on justifiable reasons for abortion. But two questions remain:

You acknowledge as I do that at some point in the pregnancy another life is at stake, so what rational is there for the choice of one overriding another?

Secondly, if we agree on when abortion is justified (and thus not justified as well) and that another life is at stake, why do you disagree on making none justifiable abortions a legal offense? How is killing what you call a life inside the womb justified, when taking one outside of the womb is not?


----------



## Care4all (Feb 6, 2010)

A chicken is not an egg, though a fertilized egg will become a chicken, they still are NOT the same....they have the potential to be the same, but at certain stages, are not the same...

There is MORE VALUE given to a person that is BORN than to a human that has not been born or birthed. (This is not something that I have made up or even necessarily believe, but is the norm in our society, imo)

(In a fertility clinic that is burning, Firemen will rescue those that are alive working there FIRST, then, if they can, will rescue the fertilized, frozen embryos)

There is a stage where the fetus is viable, able to survive outside of the womb, though still in the womb...they are as equal as a person that is born already, imho and all protections should be afforded to them, to keep them alive....  I DO NOT for the life of me, understand why anyone would need to abort their child in the latter months of their pregnancy...????  Why they had to wait until their fetus was fully formed before deciding they did not want them....is beyond me....


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> The thing is- as long as it is a FETUS, it is not an individual.



Did she ever define 'person' other than 'a non-fetus'?




> It is inside of another human being, without whom being alive, it could die.


'Without whom being alive'?



> There is no guarantee of a fetus getting prompt medical treatment if the woman was to cease from breathing and having a heartbeat.



There's no guarantee of JD getting prompt treatment either. 



> Even with fetal entitlement laws, there STILL would be no guarantee that a fetus will survive a pregnancy.



There's no guarantee a baby won't suffer from SIDS or JD won't suddenly suffer cardiac arrest. eusa_pray



> Ultimately, people should not be punished and imprisoned for being stupid,







Yes, they should, when their gross stupidity causes harm to another. I believe the term is 'gross negligence' in legal parlance.



> All she can control is her own body



You just argued against abortion right now.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose.


Yet you're defending a woman who said.



JD_2B said:


> Abortion IS birth control.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > If outlawing unacceptable behaviors does nothing to deter people from doing them, why do we bother to outlaw anything?
> 
> 
> Some people are not deterred one bit by the fact that something is against the law. Elective abortion is not against the law, so not sure why you are comparing it to things which are against the law.



Yes, SOME people have no respect for the law, that's true.  Most people, however, do.  We don't outlaw things with the expectation that it will entirely eliminate those behaviors, as two seconds of logical thought should tell you.  We outlaw things in order to deter as many people as possible, either by moral/social pressure or by making the behavior too costly to indulge in.

And since we're talking about what abortion law SHOULD be, I really, really doubt you don't understand why parallels are being drawn between abortion and other undesirable behaviors which are already outlawed.  While I don't doubt from the posts I've seen so far that you're none too bright, I'm not buying this level of obtuseness you're trying to sell.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1979897 said:
			
		

> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't this ignorant trollop storm off with her thong in a twist, vowing never to return?  Worse than bad Mexican food for repeating on you, I swear.
> ...



Ick.  You actually eat that crap?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1979899 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > They won't say these things to a man, of course. Only to a woman..  And they claim to not be misogynists. HA! Yeah.. that's a laugh!!!
> ...



Would someone please tell me how I'm supposed to tell a man that he's a baby killer for aborting the child he's pregnant with?    Once again, JD is defeated by her own despised biology.

I'm personally entertained by JD of all people telling me that _I _am the one who hates women.  Her loathing for everything female positively reeks off of her posts.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

JenT said:


> Thanks but I deleted it
> 
> I seriously don't mean to criticize anyone that's had an abortion. I think anyone that has, has been taught to look at it in a way that makes it seem okay. I think a lot of women are suffering under the burden of it even if on the surface they deny the reality of it.I've had that choice offered to me and in a way, I was weak in that even if I could logically try to believe what planned parenthood was pushing, I couldn't do it. Was that weakness? To not follow through what you try to logically reason out?



No, because what you were doing wasn't logical reasoning.  It was rationalization.  If you weren't able to sell yourself on it, that just means your subconscious knew you were bullshitting.



JenT said:


> But it's that needling memory of ignoring the resistance that sorrows women. A woman could accept the error if she didn't remember that at the time, she knew not to, but did it anyway. I can't imagine anyone actually went through an abortion without a second thought, and it's that second thought that is like a monkey on their back constantly beating them up with the guilt.
> 
> But we have ALL made mistakes. We've all done things we regret. It's why Christ came, to take on the mistakes that we've all made. The baby isn't suffering, he or she is secure in HIm. The only one suffering is the woman that was lied to and should have been supported in her hour of need.
> 
> My argument is not with the woman that's been misled, but with the politician that makes a profit or a vote out of deceiving generations of women and promotes the continuation of genocide. I think we all need to watch out for women like Lois Capps, who used to be a school nurse that distributed glasses to the needy. Then she turns around and fights with everything she's got for abortion and I gotta wonder, was she handing out glasses to little kids thinking they never should have been born? What makes a woman do that? Sick.



While I can agree with you in part about your sympathy for women who have been misled, I am not quite so nice or forgiving, because it WAS still their choice, and they DID still choose to let themselves be misled.  I am a big believer in social disapproval and shame as a deterrent, and I think we've done ourselves a disservice in our rush to alleviate the need for anyone in our society to ever feel ashamed or guilty.  And with someone like JD, who is so toxic with her own self-loathing and utterly cloaked in her sense of entitlement to total selfishness that she would rather make herself look like an uneducated fool in public rather than consider the possibility that the sun doesn't rise and set on her, she not only deserves to be hit broadside with both barrels of how contemptible and repulsive she truly is, it is a positive pleasure to do so.


----------



## JenT (Feb 6, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



I can certainly understand the concern of big government getting all legal about if we smoke during pregnancy, etc., but that's a battle Americans unfortunately have to fight in just about every aspect of life any more. I just heard New Jersey is the first state to start controlling what the day care centers teach starting with 6 week olds. Meanwhile there are soundbytes of students being trained to treat their parents like children and to love Obama.

So yeah, government pushing its way into our lives is a huge threat to freedom.

But what an analogy of "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" Denying abortion isn't about controlling someone else's body, it's recognizing that there is more than one life there and one should not have the right to destroy the other. There are so many alternatives, NONE of them easy, I know, but a life is a life, and we were all once just a small microscopic few cells with DNA already determining who we are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > You have to recognize in the basest form that you hold two beliefs that can't be held simultaneously. You can't be a cheerleader for personal choice when the result of exercising that choice has the potential to deprive another of personal choice.
> 
> 
> What I recognize is that, yes, the right of the woman to have choice does indeed override the unborn child's choice to stay alive. If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose. Rest assured though that there are cases where women seek the procedure for *reasons other than birth control, such as genetic anomalies*, health issues, complications of pregnancy. How nice it would be if physicians who perform the procedure stuck to just those cases. I would very much like to see that happen.



. . . So it's your position that handicapped people don't deserve to live, or is it just that they're not worth having around?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1980816 said:
			
		

> bobbcat said:
> 
> 
> > If one looks at the elective abortion procedure being that of just another form of birth control, I along with most other people, am offended by that. No one, IMO, should utilize this procedure for that purpose.
> ...



I think she already made it clear that she didn't bother to read any of the thread before barging in here, bristling with self-righteousness, convinced that her sincere desire to sound "nice" would be enough to carry the day.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 6, 2010)

Cynical much?





> you're none too bright


You don't know me from Adam and doubtless have not checked out my posts on other topics, yet you jump to this hasty, negative conclusion. _None too bright_, if you ask me or most anyone else, so, speak for yourself, dear, and keep the personal crap to yourself, unless of course, you're just out to impress people.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Feb 6, 2010)

I am adamantly opposed to an abortion.
I am adamantly opposed allowing government the power to pick and choose on who THEY allow to have an abortion.
Anyone that does not know that is how it always worked when abortion was "illegal" is maive, gullible dumb or all of the above.
Folks, no law stops abortion. The middle class above will still get them at will. 
Get real folks.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Cynical much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why do you halfwits always start out with this "You don't know me" line?  I don't WANT to know you, and the more you talk, the more grateful I am that I never will.  All I need to know about you is your posts, and they indicate like a giant neon sign that you're none too bright.  That opening line just underscores the fact.

I HAVE seen you around, and have to say that nothing you've said was of enough consequence for me to pay any attention to.  The only reason you are now being so favored is that you were stupid enough to come trotting in here to defend a woman who has manifestly made a fool out of herself for weeks now (which you would know, had you bothered to acquaint yourself with the thread before barging into it) with the flimsiest warm, fuzzy, PC talking point imaginable.  Since she had just previously run away with her tail between her legs like a whipped dog (something anyone with more of a sense of shame would have done weeks ago), you just took her target onto your own back.  Congratulations.  Tell me what it is about that that should make me gaze at you admiringly for your brilliance.

Please, do continue to mistakenly believe that I'm just dying to impress you, someone who earned my contempt for the first words out of her mouth that were even fortunate enough to gain my notice.  I'm certain I shall just pine away for longing for the approval of the ignorant, desperate-to-please twit who genuinely thinks "Abortion is all about a woman's body" is any kind of sensible, logical, well-thought-out argument.  And THEN, upon finding out that that cut no ice around here, immediately switched to, "Abortion is horrible, and should only be used for extreme circumstances!"  Who's trying to impress whom, "dear"?

You make the argument personal when you make it obvious that you're a moron who just mouths platitudes in the hope that everyone will like her.  Besides, I certainly can't have an in-depth issue debate concerning your incisive topic points, since you didn't have any.  That really only leaves commenting on how ludicrous it was for you to come in here without getting some first.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I am adamantly opposed to an abortion.
> I am adamantly opposed allowing government the power to pick and choose on who THEY allow to have an abortion.
> Anyone that does not know that is how it always worked when abortion was "illegal" is maive, gullible dumb or all of the above.
> Folks, no law stops abortion. The middle class above will still get them at will.
> Get real folks.



Oh, "at will", is it?  You honestly think there were millions of abortions every year prior to Roe v. Wade, do you?  We're going with the class warfare argument now, are we?  "Kill your babies to put the rich bastards in their place"?

It's like ignorance is contagious, I swear.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 6, 2010)

Another one for the ignore list (as I really don't like to feed trolls). Recommended reading for you, dear: _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. Your social 'skills' need a lot of work. It just isn't necessary to be so snarky and nasty.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 6, 2010)

Gadawg73 said:


> I am adamantly opposed to an abortion.
> I am adamantly opposed allowing government the power to pick and choose on who THEY allow to have an abortion.
> Anyone that does not know that is how it always worked when abortion was "illegal" is maive, gullible dumb or all of the above.
> Folks, no law stops abortion. The middle class above will still get them at will.
> Get real folks.



So, are you against legalized abortion for only the po' folk, for everyone, or not against legalized abortion at all?


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 6, 2010)

Care4all said:


> A chicken is not an egg, though a fertilized egg will become a chicken, they still are NOT the same....they have the potential to be the same, but at certain stages, are not the same...
> 
> There is MORE VALUE given to a person that is BORN than to a human that has not been born or birthed. (This is not something that I have made up or even necessarily believe, but is the norm in our society, imo)
> 
> (In a fertility clinic that is burning, Firemen will rescue those that are alive working there FIRST, then, if they can, will rescue the fertilized, frozen embryos)



I have to disagree with you on the firemen "rescuing" frozen embryos. Those frozen embryos are business assets, not lives, and nobody in their right mind would go back into a burning building to retrieve cryogenically (sp?) frozen anything. For one thing, they are frozen. Frozen bodies of born humans do not get any kind of "rush" status on saving, so why would anyone put a rush on frozen embryos? The vast majority of those embryos will not survive in the uterus anyways. Those docs like to implant several  embryos in hopes of getting someone preggers. 




> There is a stage where the fetus is viable, *able to survive outside of the womb, though still in the womb*...they are as equal as a person that is born already, imho and all protections should be afforded to them, to keep them alive....  I DO NOT for the life of me, understand why anyone would need to abort their child in the latter months of their pregnancy...????  Why they had to wait until their fetus was fully formed before deciding they did not want them....is beyond me....



It might have all of the stuff in place that gives it the potential capacity to survive outside of the uterus, if it ever got out of there without any strange complications, sure. That does not make a viable fetus alive, or a person. 
However, I do empathize with the sentiment that generally speaking, most women do seem to have a social obligation of morality to go ahead and birth the fetus, once it gets to the third trimester. However, moral standards based on social stigmas are inadequate reasons for passing legislation that gives fetuses rights, and therefore criminalize women for a variety of reasons..

Stillbirth: If the woman had a stillbirth, and the fetus had "rights", then the investigators have the right to "search" her body cavities for "evidence" that she did something wrong that caused the stillbirth to happen. This is not fair. 
Let's say that the woman was hit by a car, completely by accident, and was a few weeks away from her due date. She doesn't die, but her fetus is stillborn.. Is that homicide? Suddenly her stillbirth, which may have been caused by a combination of the accident and some other issues as well, for all anyone knows, is on public record, not private at all, and the case is the State versus whomever hit her. 

Now, many people say that these cases should be treated the same, and who cares about anyone's medical privacy rights, etc, but that is just unconstitutional, plain and simple. 

Being born is not a right. It is not an entitlement to come out healthy and breathing. It only happens this way by luck/ intelligence and love/ wantedness. If a fetus is unwanted, then the love part is generally missing. It could be wanted and unloved, of course. Those can be given up for adoption. Then there are the fetuses that are loved AND wanted, but the person is having a patch of shitty luck at the time, and the pregnancy is untimely for them, even if it is later on that this comes to be. Someone can also be loving, wanting it, and have the best luck in their lives, but be really stupid, and make some kind of decision that wrecks the pregnancy, or allow someone in their life to wreck it, physically, or whatever. 
I know that is all sucks, to say it out loud, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but really- that is how it works, in a nutshell. I am also aware that many people think that luck is only for the superstitious, but sometimes people have rotten luck, and sometimes people have awesome luck. We all know it is true, or we wouldn't cross our fingers when we hope for something to go our way. =)

 I really do not see any real difference in the potential life of a frozen  embryo compared to the potential life of a late term "viable" fetus, either. Yeah there is the viability issue- but really, embryos might as well be considered viable, too. I mean, we have frozen embryos living outside of the womb. It's not like the bottom line in all of this is the potential for it to come out of the womb and still grow into adulthood. Obviously not, so the viability arguments never make any sense to me at all, because they lack consistency, in my book. (no offense meant, by the way)

It seems to me that if someone makes a choice to use IVF, (which destroys several wanted embryos at a time, in general, which have already proven themselves worthy of being outside of the womb) they are heralded, while someone who chooses to abort a pregnancy that was never wanted in the first place is treated like a scumbag, all because of how far along they were when they made the choice. That is so unfair. 

I think it is silly to think that firemen should rescue frozen embryos which would probably be destroyed during the rescue process or after the IVF treatment is complete. I think it is silly to act as though people who want to get pregnant and go so far as to destroy 5 embryos just to get one pregnancy right, are somehow saints! And I am further appalled by how women are treated when they choose to have late term abortions, based on the social stigma attached to their decision. We do not know these women. These women account for the smallest percentage of all abortions, too! Most women would think it was too emotionally devastating to see what might as well be a "dead baby" coming out of her vagina, that anyone in their right mind is not going to make a decision like that based on nothing or based on reasons that we would consider to be ridiculous or petty. 

I realize that some women WOULD make the decision for petty reasons, but how many, really? Ten a year? If that? Most doctors who do late term abortions have a screening process anyways, no doubt. Everyone has a screening process to take care of people who are moral and say fuck off to those who we cant stand to look at. If some 38 week pregnant woman called a doctors office and said that she wanted a late term abortion, Why would anyone think that the doctor would be so desperate for money that he would not tell her she had to wait until he had time in his schedule, which was a three or four week wait? By then the fetus would be overdue. 

I mean, REALLY. Late term abortions being legal would NOT be a major issue, at all. Let's all please get real here, ok?


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 6, 2010)

Stop encouraging women to randomly fuck men they aren't interested in raising children with....problem solved.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 7, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Stop encouraging women to randomly fuck men they aren't interested in raising children with....problem solved.



And since when are all abortions caused by women fucking random men????

PS- Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. Save your Chastity belt for the convent, love.


----------



## JenT (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> > Stop encouraging women to randomly fuck men they aren't interested in raising children with....problem solved.
> ...



Come on JD, ya gotta admit the majority are

oh wait...if they know his name is he still considered random?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I realize that some women WOULD make the decision for petty reasons, but how many, really? Ten a year? If that?




Once again


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]*Why women  have abortions
*1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6%  of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either  the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons  (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).[/FONT]


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

*Social Reasons  (given as primary reason)* 
                - Feels unready          for child/responsibility          25%                 - Feels she          can't afford baby          23%                 - Has all the  		children she wants/Other family responsibilities          19%                 - Relationship          problem/Single motherhood 8%                 - Feels she          isn't mature enough 7%                 - Interference  		with education/career plans 4%                 -  		Parents/Partner wants abortion <1%                 - Other reasons <6.5%  *TOTAL:* _ *93%
*(Approx.)_ *
"Hard Cases" (given as primary          reason)* 
                - Mother's          Health 4%                 - Baby may have          health problem          3%                 - Rape or Incest *<0.5%* 

 * 
    TOTAL:
* * 

        7%
*_ (Approx.)_*
*


* *Source:*   		Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:  Quantitative  		and Qualitative Perspectives" _ Perspectives   		on Sexual and Reproductive Health_, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept.,  		2005) p. 110.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> [
> Women are not the sexual gatekeepers.




Then shut the fuck up and open your legs, bitch. If you're no gatekeeper, you can't say no.

Congrats, you just said women are nothing more than toys, with no right or ability to chose whom they wish to have sex with.

You can't really be a female, when you spew such misogynistic bullshit throughout this thread.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 7, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



I seriously doubt it!! The majority of women who abort already have kids. 

Already have kids means that they are mothers. Being a mother means that you do not get a whole lot of opportunity to go out. It also means that you do not bring a whole lot of men home with you, out of concern for your children. 
The majority of women who abort are not married, but one should not decide that they do not cohabitate with the father, based on that. Actually, these days, the marriage rate decreasing has nothing to do with having kids and living together, just like married people. Many couples decide to live together and have kids, and just put off getting married, for whatever reason. 
Even if these were single moms who do not cohabitate, it would stand to reason that they have even less time on their hands to go out to bars and clubs and what not, spreading the love, so to speak. 

I don't know how you can possibly go from someone not wanting to be pregnant directly to them being a slut. Not wanting to be pregnant is something that can happen to anyone, and actually DOES happen to about 50% of all women in the world, at one point in their lives. 

So, are you saying that 50% of all of the women in the world are hos, just because YOU disagree with their ability to decide to have an abortion??


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Another one for the ignore list (as I really don't like to feed trolls). Recommended reading for you, dear: _How to Win Friends and Influence People_. Your social 'skills' need a lot of work. It just isn't necessary to be so snarky and nasty.



Toots, just because YOU run around desperately trying to make everyone like you like some demented junior high cheerleader doesn't mean the rest of us are so pathetically eager to please.  And NOTHING should make you think that YOU are a desirable social _coup _for anyone but pitiful losers like JD.  I find it very necessary to be so snarky and nasty to you, if only to puncture that huge ego that makes you delusionally believe that people are just DYING for your friendship.

If you're gaining a clue in that obtuse skull of yours that I wouldn't allow such an ignorant _naif _to be my friend even if you begged, then I'm clearly influencing you very effectively.

Tell me again how a fetus is part of his mother's body, "dear".  Tell me how it's a "personal choice" to kill helpless babies.  Impress me some more with how much I want to make you like me.    As if.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Stop encouraging women to randomly fuck men they aren't interested in raising children with....problem solved.



JD's not trying to convince women to randomly fuck losers, Allie.  She's trying to convince herself that it's okay that SHE does.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > AllieBaba said:
> ...



He is if they only know it from reading it on his belt buckle, which I'm guessing is how JD identifies most of her dates.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1982836 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



The other option being that she thinks all women are horny minks who are incapable of stopping themselves from rutting like animals with any man who waves a dick at them, and cannot be expected to exercise self-control and discretion and actually choose to have sex only with men they would actually want to have children with.

Apparently, the idea that ALL people are the sexual gatekeepers for their own sex lives is just beyond her comprehension.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> So, are you saying that 50% of all of the women in the world are hos, just because YOU disagree with their ability to decide to have an abortion??




You have a source for your claim that one-half of all women have abortions?



> Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in  abortion.[2]



Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

In response to earlier bullshit form JD

Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984170 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you saying that 50% of all of the women in the world are hos, just because YOU disagree with their ability to decide to have an abortion??
> ...



Plus many of those are repeat customers.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
			
		

> In response to earlier bullshit form JD
> 
> Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth



very interesting article, thank you for posting the link.  Obviously there are women who truly feel no remorse, primarily because they do not believe they are killing a person, and there are those who seem to think the opposite, and can not handle their overwhelming remorse...or their situation was not the best of situations as it stood....they were pregnant, probably left to deal with the situation alone and without the father, chose to abort...though they really did not want to, (due to their more than likely difficult, lonely, or impoverished situation of their own)...who really knows?

These statistics should be made available to the counselors at the clinics, to the gynos and their helpers performing abortions so that they can fully inform the women going there of the risk or be more aware of this and develop some tell tale signs of the women who they deem ones that are more troubled with their decision to abort....like if they are sobbing on the gurney when their legs are being spread and put in to the stirups right before performing it or just crying in all of their visits there prior to the abortion....  

I had thought at first, it was going to be a medical reason from the actual procedure that caused more deaths in women with abortions vs those who were pregnant within the year after birth or abortion....had no idea it was suicide....


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
			
		

> In response to earlier bullshit form JD
> 
> Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth



That was a truly fascinating article.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And how do we know that these women would be better off going through with a pregnancy they had doubts about?  How do we know they would not be at even greater risk for post partum depression should they chose to give birth thinking it will solve their problems?


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
> ...



Because we can see into the future


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
			
		

> In response to earlier bullshit form JD
> 
> Abortion Four Times Deadlier Than Childbirth


In response to your questionable link.

*[SIZE=+3]About U[/SIZE]*[SIZE=+3]*s*[/SIZE]About the Elliot Institute: 21+ Years of Pro-Woman/Pro-Life Work
Learn more about the history and work of the Elliot Institute in this brochure.  
More About Our Projects


2008 Year End Report
This brochure, _Ending Abortion With Compassion_, discusses how working to end abortion is both pro-woman and pro-life, and what we can do to foster a society that protects the rights of both women and unborn children. 
Here is the definitive answer to one of our most frequently asked questions,"Who is Elliot?"  
Learn more about the Director of the Elliot Institute, David C. Reardon here. 

This is a link to the archive of all our *news releases*
*Elliot Institute* 
*[SIZE=-1]PO Box 7348[/SIZE]* 
*[SIZE=-1]Springfield, IL 62791-7348[/SIZE]* 
*[SIZE=-1](217) 525-8202[/SIZE]*


About the Elliot Institute and How You Can Help


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
> ...



We don't know Anguille....I would imagine they could be more susceptible to post partum depression but I do not know enough about it to say that for certain....but if it is connected then I would have the doc pay close attention to those who are pregnant and deliver and show signs of depression as well...

I am not saying the doc should not perform the abortion...just that some more, in depth counseling should be done, or the patient should be duly warned of the side effects....shoot, we are warned about the possible side effects for medicines we take, (anti depressants can cause suicide in some) and for other operations we may have....(those having a sex change have to go through lengthy psych analysis before the sex change is permitted) that could lead to suicide, why not this as well?


----------



## dilloduck (Feb 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



Because you might make em feel bad---you KNOW that's why you would do it !


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

Moron.


> This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical  analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for  Welfare and Health.



[SIZE=-1]1. Gissler, M., et. al., "Pregnancy-associated deaths in  Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record  linkage," _Acta Obsetricia et Gynecolgica Scandinavica_ 76:651-657  (1997).


[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]4. S. J. Drower, & E. S. Nash, "Therapeutic Abortion  on Psychiatric Grounds," _South African Medical Journal_  54:604-608, Oct. 7, 1978; B. Jansson, _Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia_  41:87, 1965.


and more


Read the sources at the bottom of the page.

Nice attempt at attacking the group reporting the results when you're unable to find fault with the study, though.


Just goes to prove once again, ho dishonest you are.
[/SIZE]


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984647 said:
			
		

> Moron.
> 
> 
> > This well-designed record-based study is from STAKES, the statistical  analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for  Welfare and Health.
> ...


Can you explain why I can find no mention of this "study' anywhere on the net other than on anti-abortion sites? You'd think it would be mentioned on some medical sites, in Wikipedia.

The article doesn't even give the name of this "study"  It keeps refering to it as STAKES but STAKES is just the name for the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health. The article is full of supposition and biased statements. I think it's hoax.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Feb;190(2):422-7.
*Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000.*

Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P.
National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health, Information Division, Helsinki, Finland. mika.kissler@stakes.fi
Comment in:


Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Dec;191(6):2182; author reply 2182-3. 
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;191(4):1506-7. 
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that pregnant and recently pregnant women enjoy a "healthy pregnant women effect," we compared the all natural cause mortality rates for women who were pregnant or within 1 year of pregnancy termination with all other women of reproductive age. STUDY DESIGN: This is a population-based, retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000. Information on all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland (n=15,823) was received from the Cause-of-Death Register and linked to the Medical Birth Register (n=865,988 live births and stillbirths), the Register on Induced Abortions (n=156,789 induced abortions), and the Hospital Discharge Register (n=118,490 spontaneous abortions) to identify pregnancy-associated deaths (n=419). RESULTS: The age-adjusted mortality rate for women during pregnancy and within 1 year of pregnancy termination was 36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, which was significantly lower than the mortality rate among nonpregnant women, 57.0 per 100,000 person-years (relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.71). The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000). We observed a significant increase in the risk of death from cerebrovascular diseases after delivery among women aged 15 to 24 years (RR 4.08, 95% CI 1.58-10.55). CONCLUSION: Our study supports the healthy pregnant woman effect for all pregnancies, including those not ending in births.

PMID: 14981384 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, sponta... [Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004] - PubMed result

This description makes no mention of abortion's possible effects.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Do doctors warn women about the possible psychological effects of giving birth? No doubt some do, just as no doubt some abortion providers warn of the same to abortion patients. Where do people get the idea that these things are never discussed? Why do you think 'some more, in depth counseling should be done?  What additional counseling do you suggest and do you really think that what you read on this anti-abortion website is giving you a truthful picture of what is commonly discussed between patient and doctor or that it is even presenting the statistics in an honest way?


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

The Eliot Institute reveals itself to be a completely misleading and biased site. This is what they provide on their research page. And it's only a sample. lol!!!

More Research on Post-Abortion Issues

*Most Compelling, Up-to-date Information on the Forbidden Grief of Abortion Published in New Book *
*Clinical Depression / Abortion Link Reported in Top Journal *
*Rape and Incest Victims Reject and Regret Abortions. New Book Surveys 192 Victims *
*Complications of Delivery Linked to Prior Abortion: New Study *
*Q & A: Finding Real Answers about Abortion *
*New Study Confirms Link Between Abortion and Substance Abuse *
*Women's Mental Health Declines After Abortion While Childbirth Helps: Two New Studies *
*Pro-choice Researchers Acknowledge Existence of "Postabortion Syndrome" &#8212; Half a Million Affected *
*Bibliography Visit the Thomas W. Strahan Memorial Library for a very extensive bibliography of published studies on the detrimental effects of abortion.  An excellent resource for students and researchers! *​









[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]www.afterabortion.org[/FONT]
*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]copyright 2000 Elliot Institute
Regarding Permission to Reprint [/FONT]*


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Anguille said:
> ...



I don't know if women are warned of the consequences or risks of pregnancy or post partum depression, I have never had a child.... and I am uncertain if docs warn those aborting of all of the possible side affects either....

But I do believe that BOTH should be warned of such, because it is the RIGHT thing to do.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

This site is a joke!!  A sad joke at the expense of pregnant women seeking real answers.


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> I don't know if women are warned of the consequences or risks of pregnancy or post partum depression, I have never had a child.... and I am uncertain if docs warn those aborting of all of the possible side affects either....
> 
> But I do believe that BOTH should be warned of such, because it is the RIGHT thing to do.


I believe honest representation of all the risks is certainly called for and I believe it is provided in most cases. In the end it is always the woman's choice and no one should be cohearced or tricked or browbeaten into doing anything against their will, whether it be taking a pregnancy to term or ending it. This article is certainly not something that would fall into the category of honest representation.


----------



## Care4all (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if women are warned of the consequences or risks of pregnancy or post partum depression, I have never had a child.... and I am uncertain if docs warn those aborting of all of the possible side affects either....
> ...



huh?  the site is a joke?  the place in Finland running the analysis or the site that interpreted the Finland results?


----------



## Anguille (Feb 7, 2010)

Care4all said:


> Anguille said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


The Eliot Institute site that prophyactic linked to for the article. 

It's a joke as in it's laughable. I'm sure these people are dead serious in their attempts to mislead.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 7, 2010)

Oh yeah- Any site that proclaims itself to be either "pro life", "anti abortion", or anything related to the counseling of young women who are facing a "crisis pregnancy" and are "here to help", are merely propaganda machines that design themselves to methodically mislead and psychologically injure people who are either pregnant and considering abortion, or have already terminated a pregnancy. 

There are a lot of deaths related to having a kid/ choosing to abort.  On one hand, you have the kid, win with the pro lifers (on abortion matters) and lose with possibly the same pro lifers who are against you being on food stamps or other means of welfare, or being a single parent, because in their opinion, women are the sexual gatekeepers, and are entirely in control of when they get pregnant, because of this. 
On the other hand, if a person aborts, they are automatically considered a whore/slut/hoebag, who fucks everything with a schlong, all because of the choice they made, and they lose with the "pro lifers", AND the people who otherwise proclaim themselves to be against welfare options, as those same people will retract their former comments and say "Hey there are plenty of organizations that can support you.. Just because I am against welfare, doesn't mean you should *kill your baby*."

THEN there are the ones who don't abort and are STILL called sluts and whores, and hoebags, all because they are not at the moment married, regardless of whether they ever were married or how that marriage turned out. 

I, for example, am apparently a Big Ho because I am a single parent, who aborted while I was in the Navy. I guess I sucked all the sailors cocks, and then had orgy parties with the marines on our base, too, and that is how I apparently got pregnant. It could not be because I was in a committed relationship with someone, which I was. 
And my single parent status couldn't have anything to do with my son's dad being dead, or anything like that, either. And of course, no woman could ever make a choice to abort if she is married. That NEVER happens, according to these sick fuckers. 

Fun thread, though.. I really enjoy it!! =)


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 7, 2010)

If people want women to stop killing themselves after having a baby, what needs to be done is to *stop* treating them as if they are sluts, whores, welfare bums, immoral hags, or as though the abuse that they were going through while in the relationship was somehow their own fucking fault. 

Anyone will kill themselves if they are treated like shit. Being treated like shit can really help a depressive person to become more depressed, and commit suicide. *Gee! What a revelation that is!!*

*Stop* treating people like they are less valuable than someone who is happily married, just because they are not. People are legally allowed to give birth without being married. They are also entitled to justice when they start getting abused by their spouse during the pregnancy. 

*Stop* treating people like they are worthless just because their pregnancy came at the worst possible time. Abortion is perfectly legal and worthwhile, if the situation at hand is deemed that dramatic by the woman as one that she cannot survive, along with an unexpected pregnancy. 

*Stop* treating people like they don't deserve to live or should be sterilized, all because they gave birth and lost their position in their company during maternity leave. Legally, companies do not have to give a woman her same position in the company, or even the same level of pay, after she returns from maternity leave. They simply have to ensure that she HAS a position in the company. 
*
Stop* treating women who do not see fetuses as people as though they are morally bankrupt, or idiotic people. Fetuses are fetuses, and people are people. Legally. 

*Stop *being ASSHOLES to women, and then sitting on a high horse, claiming to not be misogynistic PIGS. It is MEAN and abusive, and we will NOT be treated this way. *We are women, HEAR US ROAR!!!!*


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> This site is a joke!!  A sad joke at the expense of pregnant women seeking real answers.




Did you ever refute the studies the site cited?


No?


Yet more sad hackery from the eelbitch.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

Stop acting like a slut, JD, and we'll stop treating you like one.


You're the one who said you, and every other woman, lack the ability to resist shoving any penis put in front of you, inside your body.


----------



## JenT (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> If people want women to stop killing themselves after having a baby, what needs to be done is to *stop* treating them as if they are sluts, whores, welfare bums, immoral hags, or as though the abuse that they were going through while in the relationship was somehow their own fucking fault.
> 
> Anyone will kill themselves if they are treated like shit. Being treated like shit can really help a depressive person to become more depressed, and commit suicide. *Gee! What a revelation that is!!*
> 
> ...



Well I'm not roaring, but I agree with everything you said except what's in blue above. And if a woman honestly could not survive the pregnancy, that's a different story, but MILLIONS have been aborted under that clause which was 99.9 times not true. 

I respect you JD. I totally disagree with you on those points, but I respect you. In fact a lot. Takes a brave woman to be as honest and transparent as you have been.

If only Obama had a fraction of that


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Oh, God, more assumptions from JD based on the Lifetime TV Movie that is her life.  "Mothers don't have much time to go out."  "You don't bring a lot of men home."  Oh, yeah?  Then how do you explain all those women out there on welfare with multiple kids from multiple sperm donors?  God was in the mood for a lot of virgin births, was he?

"The majority of women who abort already have kids."  "The majority of women who abort are not married."  JD's own words.  And then she wonders how we got from that to "slut".


----------



## JenT (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984879 said:
			
		

> Stop acting like a slut, JD, and we'll stop treating you like one.
> 
> 
> You're the one who said you, and every other woman, lack the ability to resist shoving any penis put in front of you, inside your body.



YOU on the other hand, you're the one that needs a chill pill.

Do people like you just pretend to be this...

this...

inhuman?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984233 said:
> ...



Um, the study?  You know, where it says that women who go to term are less likely to commit suicide than even women who didn't get pregnant, let alone women who aborted?

Serious post-partum depression is actually not that common, no matter WHAT the media would like you to think.


----------



## JenT (Feb 7, 2010)

Anguille said:


> And how do we know that these women would be better off going through with a pregnancy they had doubts about?  How do we know they would not be at even greater risk for post partum depression should they chose to give birth thinking it will solve their problems?



I remember a few of my friends were told they shouldn't have any more abortions or they'd never have children. Every abortion reduces the chance of pregnancy, at least they did a few years ago. Maybe they've (gag) perfected the procedure. (vomit)


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> *We are women, HEAR US ROAR!!!!*


Wild animals roar.


Respectable people speak.


When you're able to speak honestly, let us know.


Until then, you shall be treated as the animal you present yourself as, roaring, and unable to decide with whom to copulate.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

I, for one, have known several single mothers who still have social lives. Friends worth being around will be understanding that your child comes first.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 7, 2010)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Serious post-partum depression is actually not that common, no matter WHAT the media would like you to think.




It's kinda an evolutionary disadvantage.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 7, 2010)

Every pregnancy reduces the chance of another pregnancy also..  

Plus, shouldn't the goal be that the woman has a HEALTHY pregnancy?

Women with a history of depression or suicide attempts are at a higher risk of suicide, with or without abortion in the picture. The less these women see a fetus as a person, the better their chances of them not committing suicide as a result of feeling guilty over it. 
And the more people act supportive of parents, even the poor and less than outstanding ones, the less likely they are to commit suicide as well. 

How is it that any of this needs explanation? I am beginning to understand whom it is that is emotionally bankrupt here.. 

PS- I saw what proletarian wrote, in your quote, and I just GOTTA say it.. Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. AGAIN. Lather, rinse, fucking repeat as per the fucking usual. That does not mean that women lack self control, either, probe, you fucking crack head. It just means that women are not the only ones WITH self control, who can avoid having sex. All pregnancies require not just an EGG but a SPERM as well. Biology fucking 101 for ya. 

PS- Stop jacking off to all of my posts, you freak. Are you fucking OBSESSED with me? Weirdo.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

JenT said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1984879 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Go back and read her posts, Jen.  That's exactly what she keeps saying.  Why is it inhuman for Prole to point out the idiocy of her words, but not inhuman for her to say such stupid things in the first place?  What do you think "Women are not the sexual gatekeepers" MEANS, anyway?  If women aren't the gatekeepers of their own sexual organs and sex lives, who the hell IS?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 7, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1985120 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > *We are women, HEAR US ROAR!!!!*
> ...



I'm sorry, but with JD and other misogynistic feminists like her, it's more like "I am woman, hear me snivel."


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> I am beginning to understand whom it is that is emotionally bankrupt here..



Illiterate, too. 


> PS- I saw what proletarian wrote, in your quote, and I just GOTTA say it.. Women are not the sexual gatekeepers.



That's the difference between you and me. I think women can and should be able to decide for themselves whom to have sex with. I  view women as equals with their own wills and minds. Obviously, you don't.

I repeat,



			
				&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1853381 said:
			
		

> YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST.  FEMINISM WAS ABOUT EQUALITY BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN. THE FIRST AND  SECOND-WAVE FEMINISTS WHO FOUGHT FOR SUFFRAGE AND  EQUALITY IN THE WORKPLACE HAVE LONG STOOD IN OPPOSITION TO FAR LEFT  SEXIST FEMINAZI SCUM LIKE YOU, BECAUSE YOU UNDERMINE THE VERY PRINCIPLES  UPON WHICH TRUE FEMINISM WAS FOUNDED. ...
> 
> Now grow the fuck up, little girl, and show some personal  responsibility- you know, like you want the poor drunk bastard who nailed  your ass when you're begging for that child support check to do.







> . All pregnancies require not just an EGG but a SPERM as well. Biology fucking 101 for ya.



Biology 101? You mean you getting pregnant by a dog in mexico.

Not all pregnancies require sperm, btw, but grasping that'd require an understanding of advanced biology.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 8, 2010)

You are on my ignore list, pro- so you might as well stop jerking off every time I respond to someone. LMAO!! =)


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2010)

JenT said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > If people want women to stop killing themselves after having a baby, what needs to be done is to *stop* treating them as if they are sluts, whores, welfare bums, immoral hags, or as though the abuse that they were going through while in the relationship was somehow their own fucking fault.
> ...



You haven't read through much of this thread have you. No objective person reading this thread can charcterize her as honest.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> Cynical much?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would agree with that sentiment. It seems that most of us agree in moral principle but not in legal. That's what i don't understand. If you agree abortion is taking a life at some point, why the objection to making it a legal issue?


----------



## blu (Feb 8, 2010)

the government should have 0 say on what people do to their own body


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> the government should have 0 say on what people do to their own body



Should a person be allowed to walk into a school butt-naked? 
Should a person be allowed to jerk-off in a public park?

The government should have and must have some say into what people can do with their bodies. However, that doesn't mean a person has no rights over his/her body. Abortion should be legal, but the more and more viable the fetus becomes (later into the pregnancy), the more consideration should be given to the fetus.

For the person that says women become extremely depresed by the guilt of aborting a baby, this may be true for some, but so do women (even to a larger extent) who give up the child for adoption. Women who have an unwanted baby also go through large amounts of depression.


----------



## blu (Feb 8, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > the government should have 0 say on what people do to their own body
> ...



does going to school naked effect someone/something besides the person who owns the body?
does jerking off in public effect people besides the person doing it?


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...


You just destroyed your entire premise by proving GHook's point.


----------



## blu (Feb 8, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987104 said:
			
		

> blu said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



i would like to see you show that


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987104 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Abortion harms another.

Another organism is not your body.


By definition.


So your position fails by your own criteria.


----------



## blu (Feb 8, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987160 said:
			
		

> blu said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987104 said:
> ...



lol... appealing to fetus is a person etc


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> does going to school naked effect someone/something besides the person who owns the body?




Now man up, be honest for once in your life, and admit that your position is fallacious per your own criterion.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1985444 said:
			
		

> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > I am beginning to understand whom it is that is emotionally bankrupt here..
> ...



And yet somehow, she thinks it's not HER job to be the "gatekeeper" and keep the sperm out of her body.  I'd still like to know who she thinks should be in charge of the Border Patrol for her particular "illegal immigrant" problem.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> JenT said:
> 
> 
> > JD_2B said:
> ...



Or respectable.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



Does killing an unborn baby affect someone other than the person who's doing the killing?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987160 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sweetie, we just spent 70-some odd pages proving beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus is a living human being.  You don't get to just waltz in here at page 72-3 and pretend it never happened, and your whole "Not a person" song and dance is nothing but warmed-over rationalizing bullshit.  Go peddle that smokescreen to someone who can't pass 7th-grade science class.  I think JD's in the market for a new braindead sycophant.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2010)

blu said:


> &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987160 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do we really need to stick the definition of person up here for the upteenth time? i guess so.

Main Entry: per·son
Pronunciation: \&#712;p&#601;r-s&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French persone, from Latin persona actor's mask, character in a play, person, probably from Etruscan phersu mask, from Greek pros&#333;pa, plural of pros&#333;pon face, mask  more at prosopopoeia
Date: 13th century

1 : human, individual sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes <chairperson> <spokesperson>
2 : a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3 a : one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians b : the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; also : the body and clothing <unlawful search of the person>
5 : the personality of a human being : self
6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7 : reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection

Let's look at these various definitions one by one and see if fetus meets any of the criteria.

1) Most definately (though this one horribly confused JD)

2)No, but then again a lot born individuals would be ruled out as well as it dependent on a specific context

3)Debateable depending on your relgious beliefs

4) Definately again

5)Again debateable. Does a fetus at some point have a concept of self? Heck, does an infant really have a concept of self? 

6)Believe it or not case law indicates that the unborn indeed do have rights. Legal Status of the Unborn And before you make the lame excuse that JD does and attack the site rather than critically examining what is written, just please read what is written

7)A fetus could again be considered a person under this context.

This should be incontravertible proof that an unborn child indeed is a person. The only two definition that don't pass any muster at all are the religious one and the context of guise. But again both are context sensative and would require elimination of many many more than just the unborn if they were sole definition of personhood. The likes of you and JD believe you have this justification based on fact when it comes to personhood and justifying abortion as a result. But you just plain don't. You need to come up with a different rationale as to why the unborn should not be afforded legal protection against late term abortion for convenience because saying it's okay because they aren't persons simply is untrue.


----------



## bobbcat (Feb 8, 2010)

> If you agree abortion is taking a life at some point, why the objection to making it a legal issue?


I don't think outlawing it would do any appreciable good. Besides, outlawing it would unnecessarily snag those women who seek the procedure for legitimate reasons. Again, there are ways to fight the use of this procedure as a means of birth control through education and support of the women and through the stigmatization of physicians who are willing to perform the procedure as a means of birth control. Frankly, I don't know how such docs live with themselves. I certainly would never work for one or be a patient of one.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 8, 2010)

What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.


----------



## AllieBaba (Feb 8, 2010)

Of course it's an elective procedure, if it's done in an abortion clinic. Remember, it's all about choice.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2010)

bobbcat said:


> > If you agree abortion is taking a life at some point, why the objection to making it a legal issue?
> 
> 
> I don't think outlawing it would do any appreciable good. Besides, outlawing it would unnecessarily snag those women who seek the procedure for legitimate reasons. Again, there are ways to fight the use of this procedure as a means of birth control through education and support of the women and through the stigmatization of physicians who are willing to perform the procedure as a means of birth control. Frankly, I don't know how such docs live with themselves. I certainly would never work for one or be a patient of one.



So if those objections could be cleared up would you then be willing to consider making it illegal?

How about the law as a deterent. To deter behavior is not the only reason we have laws outlawing certain behavior. Apparently the law doesn't stop people from murdering other people. As that much of a reason to make murder legal? Of course not. Because to deter behavior is not the only reason we have laws against certain behavior. The simple fact that justice must be served would be one. 

As to who the law would effect, you make the law whatever you need it to be. I don't have the details worked out in my head, but my idea would be something along the lines of no abortion after x weeks of pregnancy for non medically necessary reasons. I wouldn't prosecute people for accidental miscarriages and I'm not naive as to how this would look in reality. Just like any other law it may get broken and people may not get caught. Maybe some mother's would induce miscarriages in some way. Those might never get reported. Or accidental miscarriages won't get reported and maybe they shouldn't be. But none of those reasons imo are good enough reasons to avoid seeking justice for someone.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.



As in for reasons that are not medically necessary I would presume.


----------



## JD_2B (Feb 8, 2010)

LMAO! Just took a peek at some of the haters' posts. Wow. So, now, I got pregnant by a drunk who I did not know, and begging for a child support check???

REALLY!!!

Because last time I checked, I was fucking MARRIED to my LATE ex husband, you fucking dipshits. 

God almighty, if that was not the most pathetic attempt at.. I dont even know what. But it was pathetic, at best, that's for sure. LMAO!!!!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > &#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1987160 said:
> ...



You have more patience than I do.  Personally, at this point I'd tell these lackwits to go buy their own dictionary.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.



First she didn't know that dogs can't impregnate humans.  THEN she didn't know that the fetus has a separate blood supply from his mother's.  NEXT she couldn't figure out what the definition of "person" was.  And NOW she has no clue what "birth control" is (which probably explains how she keeps getting knocked up).

Oh, yeah.  All KINDS of worthy of respect, she is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 8, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> LMAO! Just took a peek at some of the haters' posts. Wow. So, now, I got pregnant by a drunk who I did not know, and begging for a child support check???
> 
> REALLY!!!
> 
> ...




Thought she had us on ignore.  Maybe she had as much trouble figuring that out as she did the difference between canines and human beings.


----------



## &#9773;proletarian&#9773; (Feb 9, 2010)

Any bets as to when she asks again about the fetal blood supply?


----------



## GHook93 (Feb 9, 2010)

JD_2B said:


> What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.



Yea I heard this argument before. I have never bought it, its too illogical. They claim some crazy soles will use abortion as a form of birth control. That they are reckless and then just abort the baby when they get knocked up and do it over and over again. First, there might be a percent of a percent that does this (meaning maybe 1 out of a million). Second, this would be the stupidest form of birth control, because not only is it expensive, but your putting yourself through surgery!

For the prolifers these illogical claim only hurts your argument.


----------



## Bern80 (Feb 9, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.
> ...



From Pro's post on page 68:

Social Reasons (given as primary reason) 
- Feels unready for child/responsibility 25% - Feels she can't afford baby 23% - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19% - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8% - Feels she isn't mature enough 7% - Interference with education/career plans 4% - Parents/Partner wants abortion <1% - Other reasons <6.5% TOTAL: 93%

How is that not using abortion as birth control? Aren't the same reasons given for abortion the same reasons that someone uses other forms of birth control? I think the exact opposite is what is illogical to beleive (and the stats back that up). That most abortions _don't_ occur because of an unwanted pregnancy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 9, 2010)

&#9773;proletarian&#9773;;1989822 said:
			
		

> Any bets as to when she asks again about the fetal blood supply?



Oh, if only she would ASK, instead of aggressively stating, in no uncertain terms, something that's completely and utterly wrong.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Feb 9, 2010)

GHook93 said:


> JD_2B said:
> 
> 
> > What do you mean by "as a form of birth control"? Do you mean doctors who perform abortions as elective procedures? Just curious, there.
> ...



I hate to break it to you, but 1) there ARE crazy souls out there who do exactly that, as you yourself even point out with your "percent of a percent" remark, and 2) using it even ONCE just because you "don't want a baby right now" is using it as birth control.

Oh, and 3) when did we ever accuse women who get abortions of being the brightest lights on the midway?  While I'll grant that most of them are probably just scared and wigged out by an unplanned pregnancy, that's still not the most intelligent, clear-thinking time of one's life to be making a decision, anyway.


----------



## Seer Travis (May 4, 2010)

Firstly, the idea of a "poll" on any issue is entirely irrational and insane.

The number of citizen-slaves that believe in or support any issue in no way suggests legitimacy (or lack thereof) in said issue.

Now, firstly we must look at what abortion entails, and why it is not only legal, but societally sponsored.

What is abortion claimed to be?
A medical procedure that aborts the would-be human child before it becomes a new human life. It is claimed that this procedure does not constitute murder and it is a benevolent procedure that shows what a modern and decent society we live in.

Is there any Truth in these claim? No! This explanation does not fir the known facts of abortion.

Here is the Forbidden Truth, which I will impeccably argue and prove is correct :
**

Approx. two days after the successful combining of the egg and sperm, a new life form of the same species as the biological creators attaches itself to the wall of the womb, and begins to grow. Even at this point it is a scientific fact that it is alive. In the case of humans, we now have a entirely new and unique human life form.

"Abortion" is the societally sponsored and malevolent mass-murder of helpless and innocent children by society. All a single abortion entails is the murder of a human being. The label "abortion" should not even exist. The Truth-based and legitimate term would be "murder". Every single abortion constitutes the murder of a new human being.

Abortion is sponsored and promoted by society and societal leaders for the primary reason that they know that most citizen-slaves are filled with immense but suppressed, denied and deep-seated sadistic impulses, rage and frustration because of their life experiences living in a human society.

They know that now and again these things boil to the surface, and can cause harm to their society via damage to infrastructure, murders, serious assaults etc. Adult citizen-slaves need outlets for their anger and frustrations.

Men have things like boxing, wars and hunting. Although females are involved in these activities, men are much greater represented and promoted in these activities. So it was decided that females needed and exclusive outlet. Since the family unit structure, marriage, "couple" and sacred mommy delusional institutions were already in place, societal leaders simple tacked on another new form of child abuse : A mother could legally murder her womb-trapped child. Societal leaders know that it is easier to make new lie-based policies based on the already popular lies-based policies, dogmas, institutions etc.

That said, some individual females actually believe in these lies, and do not consciously realize that they have murdered a human child.

So, that is the Forbidden Truth on abortion.
**

This is utterly insane and immoral on a societal level. It is the genocide of children.

All the scientific and philosophical arguments prove that abortion in a murder act. I know all the arguments, and all the tricks. I am ready to argue the Truth as above.


----------



## FA_Q2 (May 5, 2010)

There are 72 pages before this one where your arguments are addressed.  This is a fairly old thread and you would do better to create a new one if you want more debate but be warned, the pro choice people here will brook very little in the way of actual debate.

To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start.  Most people agree that it happens somewhere between the first and second trimester when the brain begins to function and the 'human' in us begins to develop.  The idea that it is alive before that is moot, killing a living fly is not murder and killing a 2 celled fetus is not ether.  It is all going to hinge on what you consider 'human' and finding when that begins.

To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > There are 72 pages before this one where your arguments are addressed.  This is a fairly old thread and you would do better to create a new one if you want more debate
> ...



Just for the sake of showing that I am relatively objective person, YOU are evidence that many pro-lifers are just as whacked out as pro-abortionists. You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2010)

Seer Travis, respectfully, your evidence is not factual, objective, or relevant most of the time.

Thanks.


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Just for the sake of showing that I am relatively objective person, YOU are evidence that many pro-lifers are just as whacked out as pro-abortionists. You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.
> ...



No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 5, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> Seer Travis said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Religious opinion is divided and confused as well.

For example, Latter Day Saints (orthodox Mormons) believe every soul must have a body and be born, thus an abortion would only set back a soul's entrance to this mortal world.  Yet the LDS church generally opposes abortion.

Go figure.


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Seer Travis said:
> ...



lol, don't get me started on the fucked up-ness that is organized religion.


----------



## JBeukema (May 5, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> Second, "pro-choice" is an utterly insane, lie-based and ridiculous self-deluding label. The correct terms are "pro-abortion" and most accurately "Womb-trapped child societal genocide promoters".



Good to know you're not a troll or moron and you're here for honest and intelligent discussion 


> There is no reason why lack of consciousness should matter,



So how much time and how many resources should be wasted keeping tissues alive in a braindead body?


> Further, a patient undergoing a serious operation is not conscious, and has no awareness.




They can be self-aware and some report dreaming. Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.


----------



## JBeukema (May 5, 2010)

Bern80 (to Seer Travis) said:


> You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.


Unless you ask a biologist or geneticist and get the definition of a human organism.

Your choice of vocabulary is detrimental to your arguments, despite the validity of the point you're trying to make.


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Bern80 (to Seer Travis) said:
> 
> 
> > You claim science is on your side but I imagine you would hard pressed to find a legitmate scientist whi claim that an organization of cells it what constitutes a human being.
> ...



Conversely, well phrased sentences don't inherently make one credible either.......


----------



## JBeukema (May 5, 2010)

FA_Q2 said:


> To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start.



The existence of a human being begins when egg and sperm fuze.

That's a scientific fact.

There is no room for debate on that any more than there's room for debate regarding Earth orbing Sol



> To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.



The 'personhood' argument.


----------



## FA_Q2 (May 5, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > To your post (and as covered earlier), this all depends on when you define human existence to start.
> ...


That depends on the definition.  The second quote you cited is what I was getting at.  I use the words 'human' and 'person' interchangeably.  As that seems to add a little confusion I will continue with person from now on and recognize that _technically_ a fetalized egg may be human, in practical terms I do not see it that way.


JBeukema said:


> > To me human is in the mind, not the DNA so I do not care before the brain develops into an individual but after I do not believe in non life saving abortions.
> 
> 
> 
> The 'personhood' argument.


Yes, the personhood argument.  At this point in this thread I have not seen one good point to refute this position.  After hundreds of posts by JD on the other side, here's to hoping you have something here 

It is a balance between the rights of the mother, that of the unborn and that of personal responsibility.  What differentiate man from all else, the personhood, is the mind and what gives rise to that is the brain.  That is where I put my stock into stopping abortion.


> They can be self-aware and some report dreaming. Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.


Connected to the above response in development of the brain.  This is why I do not need _definitive_ proof that the brain is working, just proof that there is electrical activity there on its own and science has provided that proof.


----------



## JBeukema (May 5, 2010)

> That depends on the definition



Human being = Human - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder what the people who are so focused on genetics would do when confronted with a hypothetical race of intelligent extraterrestrials or sentient machines.

Why does the DNA or lack thereof of the process determine the 'value' of the mind to which they give rise?


----------



## FA_Q2 (May 5, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > That depends on the definition
> 
> 
> 
> ...



did you fail to read the rest of my post on purpose.  Please be through and not misrepresent people here.


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > That depends on the definition
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph that humans have highly developed brains. The organ known as the brain doesn't even exist 'when sperm and egg fuze'.


----------



## JBeukema (May 5, 2010)

> You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph  that humans have highly developed brains.



Well, I guess that means you're not human


----------



## Bern80 (May 5, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> > You're own link states in the first sentence of the second paragraph  that humans have highly developed brains.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I guess that means you're not human



Typical cowardly response. You're the one with the contradiction on their hands. Not me.


----------



## Seer Travis (May 6, 2010)

Bern80 said:


> No you don't believe in truth. Much as you would like and organization of cells to be a human being, it is not. My belief is that happens at some point in the gestation process, but to call the intital combination and cell division of egg a sperm a human being is simply inaccurate. Abortion at that point simply isnt' killing a human being, which is why there is no standng to make a legal issue out of abortion at that point.



Of course I don't believe in Truth, I know Truth. Again we see refusal to accept simple Truth.

You are just simply *claiming* that a "group of cells" is not a human being, but you do not and cannot show how.

An adult human being could be called "just a bunch of cells" just as much as any child at any developmental stage.

Your argument that it is made of cells is moot because we could only expect a new life form to be made of cells.


----------



## JBeukema (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> The costs involved dont matter. This is an appeal to consequences fallacy in the making.




right...


So how many children should die because the resources needed to save them are squandered on a braindead patient?

Resources squandered on the braindead are resourced denied to patients who can be helped.

How long should we waste resources keeping the tissues of the braindead alive?


> That is a very ignorant and immature answer, because :
> 1. Tries to suggest that peoples views on morality/ethics/agree action should effect the argument. What people think about what to do in a situation does not matter because they could be wrong.



Yet here you are telling people what to do in the situation 


> 2. Commits a circular justification fallacy by presuming that it would be a waste of time to keep the braindead alive.



Give one good reason to keep the bodily tissues alive.


> You are presuming that consciousness does not matter






You're retarded. The very _point_ is that the mind ceases to exist in the braindead.


> 3. a brain-dead body is not a womb-trapped child. The major difference being that if it cannot live again it is futile, and if it can then one should try.



The organism is alive- it is merely braindead, showing no signs of brain activity (or of higher brain function, given a more liberal application of the term)





> 4. A braindead person was not necessarily rendered braindead by a deliberate act that could be avoided.



Nor is a foetus lacking brain function as the result of an action- it merely has not developed to the point where the brain has formed and become active, giving rise to a conscious mind. It is to the Person as the Commodore 64 is to any sentient machine that might someday exist.


> Wrong. This are cases where insufficient drugs were used, or it was a different type of procedure and thus a WEAKER type of drug was used.


And that somehow disproves my assertion that it's possible for a patient to be conscious during an operation?

Are you fucking retarded?


> That, however, does not matter. The point was that you falsely justify what a human being is (position A) by argument of consciousness (B). You in effect claim that a human being an only be such if it is conscious and self-aware.



I never said that. A human being is a human being by nature of virtue of being an organism that is genetically human. By definition. I was addressing the existence of the mind, of the person, of that which actually matters.


> You say A only if B. But I can say that B can be absent from a case where we are dealing with a human being. It does not matter how many cases there are or if every case is the same.



I don't care if it's genetically human. That means nothing at all. There is no fundamental difference between a sentient human, a sentient machine, a surviving Neanderthal, and a sentient extraterrestial intelligence. In all cases, we are dealing with a sentient intelligence that exists (to the best of our knowledge) outside of ourselves. The nature of the physical processes that give rise to that sentience are irrelevant.


> Let Me show you your logic :
> 
> A (human being instead of just a body) _requires_ B (consciousness)
> 
> Fetus not have B. Therefore, fetus cannot be A (human being).




I never said that. I was the one who pointed out that they're biologically human by definition, you twit.


> So you beg the question : Why does consciousness matter? (Obviously you are just claiming it does because it suits your conclusion.)



Why do I treat my neighbor differently than a rock? Because my neighbor is a sentient and intelligent being. both are made from atoms - in turn, both are nothing more, physically, than concentrated energy. When a man's head is blown off, what changes? Prior to the termination of his heartbeat, his mind ceases to exist along with the brain that gives rise to it. He ceased to exist as a sentient and intelligent entity. His body is nothing more than tissue - like my own body, it is merely a support system for the brain, which gives rise our existence as sentient intelligences. Harm to his body is objectionable because of the harm it causes _him_, not because of the damage it might cause to the tissue. That it why we do not punish those who cut apart or burn dead bodies - there is no mind, no person, to be harmed by the act. The respect we show for the dead corpse is primarily for those who knew the person as well as a result of our own instinctual reaction to death.


> > Also, we cannot know that they have no merely forgotten any self-generated images. So long as their brain functions continue, we can only err on the side of caution and assume that the mind to which those processes give rise continues to exit.
> 
> 
> You claim to presume. But the same can be said of the "soul" and religious arguments, and thus if you need to presume why don't you just presume that they could right.







You've evidence for those soul? Wouldn't the soul just move on anyway? Are you now attacking me for my declaring that we should protect living persons even while they are under anesthesia? Do you even know what you're babbling about, or are you meerely looking to argue about something?





> So : Your tactic is to stubbornly deny that humans can be unconscious in their life times.





Do cite where I said that.


----------



## Bern80 (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> That is an appeal to authority fallacy (dictionary). Just because human being is DEFINED that way, only means that the individual who wrote the dictionary believed that. He was wrong. There are objective and concrete standards to what a human life form is, and the womb-trapped child, baby, and adult meet those standards.



For a philospher you are not the greatest at observing proper context. Which makes the folowing drivel largely irrelevant.


----------



## Bern80 (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> Context does not change a fallacy into a point. You cannot legitimately disregard My posts by just irrationally calling them drivel.



I most certainly can. Your post has nothing to do with what I said. You took a response of mine to someone else and presumed a lot about my position. My response was to Eukema who seems to have a contradiction on his hands, which he can either clarify or not. My opinion or beliefs were no where to be found in that post, so how you can attack them in the rest of the post is beyond me.

That is what I meant when I said you need to re-examine the context of the conversation. If you did, you would see that my statements were simply stating what what was in Eukema's link and simple bilogical facts. How could read that and not only extrapolate my beliefs, but attack them out of that just shows that you are not the oh wise one you think you are.


----------



## JBeukema (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> > J Beukema: I never said that. A human being is a human being by nature of virtue of being an organism that is genetically human.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




reading comprehension fail


where did I ever say I cared about genetics?


----------



## JBeukema (May 6, 2010)

Human's aren't defined as intelligent. Humans are defined as a particular species, as determined by genetics.

Intelligence is not a necessary condition for classification as a human being. Such is simply a biological classification of the organism as a member of a particular species.

Claiming that humans [believe themselves to] have great intelligence is  an observation about them [by themselves].


----------



## JBeukema (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> You are a coward and refuse to answer the question,





Give one good reason to keep the bodily tissues alive.


> I never mentioned them, you did to duck the Q. The Q was why should consciousness matter? YOU CANT ANSWER IT.





What is the difference between a living an and a dead man? What changes the moment your head is blown off with  a .50 cal?

Arguing that a system might potentially give rise to a mind is foolish. By that reasoning, the internet should be a protected entity as the system could give rise to a conscious mind as it develops. You're just trying to use a variant of the 'potential life' bullshit that requires every carbon atom be treated as a human being.


> No, I am a philosopher and have a high IQ, and am very wise












































































































> You dont get it. You just claim it matter. Prove it matters. I say it does not matter. I showed why, because a human being who cannot be murdered can be unconscious/unaware.




You're asking _me_ to prove _your_ assertions and claiming to be intelligent?



> No, because that sentience is a PRODUCT OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN and thus a product of genetics, biological structures etc. Else, you have to concede the soul and supernatural causes and that will INCLUDE the womb-trapped child.


You're still babbling about the 'soul'?





> Why does sentience matter? Prove it. Then show Me why the patient's loss of consciousness does not render him non-human-being. If it is not the physical bodies genetics, as you say above, then WHAT do you suggest makes sentience?


l

You can't even keep track of the discussion.





> Why would one case of lack of consciousness matter (fetus) and another case of lack of consciousness (patient unconcious) not?


You've evidence that the patient ceases to exist as you claim?


> Why would that decide if you are a human being or not?


What are you babbling about? Whether something is human is determined by its DNA. Are you really so dense as to not grasp that?

lol


> Further, if consciousness matters, and is made up of only energy/matter particles


Who claimed that? You seem to be having your own discussion all by your lonesome





> , then there is no supernatural forces


non sequitur, o' wise philosopher lol


----------



## Bern80 (May 6, 2010)

JBeukema said:


> Human's aren't defined as intelligent. Humans are defined as a particular species, as determined by genetics.
> 
> Intelligence is not a necessary condition for classification as a human being. Such is simply a biological classification of the organism as a member of a particular species.
> 
> Claiming that humans [believe themselves to] have great intelligence is  an observation about them [by themselves].



I guess my point here was the link you were using as evidence states that a characteristic of humans is a highly developed brain. I was just seeking clarification as to why your posting as evidence something that seems to contradict what you are saying above. Me thinks I am missing something.

I think there may be a lot of assumptions flying around that are causing the confusion. My position in a nutshell.

Abortion shoud be illegal after a certain stage in the pregnency because at some point in the pregnancy that organization of cells becomes a human being. We have laws against killing innocent, birthed humans beings and I just don't see that there is enough of a difference between them and unborn child at a certain point in the pregnancy that justifies abortion short of maybe the mother's life being at stake. NOW if you don't agree feel free to argue away.


----------



## JBeukema (May 6, 2010)

Saying that humans have highly developed brains is puffery. It's a casual observation/claim. It is not a part of the biological definition homo sapien sapien. It's like claiming that any given compute model is fast. Any given computer might be broken and not work at all or might have half of it l2 cache shot and barely function, but it's still the same model of computer because it's defined by its components, not by its performance, just as humans are defined as such by their genetic makeup, not by their stage of development or mental acuity.

I sent frazzled to wiki because I was afraid I'd confuse him if I sent him to anything more academic.


----------



## Bern80 (May 6, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> I doubt anyone could be as profoundly retarded as JB seems to be. He is a TROLL. Simple as that. See how many laughing faces he did....to bury that small post I did where he totally contradicted himself yet again. He takes a few words out of a sentence and then complains that it does not make sense. etc. He does not answer if you have a point, he just becomes abusive or silly.
> 
> He just tries to waste peoples time. Do not argue with the troll.



In reference to this you mean?



> No, I am a philosopher and have a high IQ, and am very wise



Actually I had a similar reaction. It's hilarious watching people be so full of themselves sometimes.


----------



## Gunny (May 7, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> Firstly, the idea of a "poll" on any issue is entirely irrational and insane.
> 
> The number of citizen-slaves that believe in or support any issue in no way suggests legitimacy (or lack thereof) in said issue.
> 
> ...



*Bye.  When you want to follow the rules, maybe you can come back.  
*


----------



## JakeStarkey (May 17, 2010)

Seer Travis said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Seer Travis said:
> ...


----------

