What should abortion laws be?

[Bern80]

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I know all kinds of stuff about biological development,

All evidence to the contrary

 

[JD_2B]

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.

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.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

INCLUDING the woman.

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]

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]

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).

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]

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.

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. =)

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.

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.

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.

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]

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).

Actually, illegals are not entitled to 14th Amendment rights, so your argument is moot. Moving on...

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 ..

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]

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;]

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;]

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).

Actually, illegals are not entitled to 14th Amendment rights, so your argument is moot. Moving on...

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;]

JD,, why does your sig contain a link flagged by WoT?

 

[JD_2B]

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...



How to Use There, Their and They're - wikiHow

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;]

the misspelling of words, making it appear that you are just coming to a conclusion based on intuition, rather than logic

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;]

I could always just DROP some 15 pound weights on my tummy, using a simple pulley system, and laying down.

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.

 

[&#9773;proletarian&#9773;]

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]

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;]

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?

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]

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?

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.

Oh ok, I'd just try tourists.

 

[JD_2B]

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?

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.

Oh ok, I'd just try tourists.

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!! =)