Abortion is not killing of anyone; abortion is to abort the biological process which would eventually yield a human being.

A body without consciousness is not a human being, human is both body and mind*, body alone is never a human being; it's just a lump of organs, whether living or not.

Consciousness never exists before the fetus is delivered, and anything done to the fetus before that is not an action that is done to a human being.

Ascribing a "sacred" status to a functioning organ has nothing to do with science or morality; it is based on a religious myth that tells the dwelling of a mythical entity, named "soul", in that functioning organ.

This myth distinguished a functioning organ from a non functioning one by the dwelling of a "soul" in the functioning organ and the departing of a "soul" from the non functioning one.

By connecting this "soul" here on earth to that "God" who is up in heaven, since they are both not perceivable, the functioning organ became "sacred" and life became a "miracle" of "God".

Clearly this whole myth has nothing to do with science or logic, science distinguishes a functioning organ with the persistence of chemical reactions not with the presence of a "soul". Life in science is metabolism; life in classical religion is "God".

Therefore, the claim that aborting a fetus, that has never been conscious, is an offense against a human being is not true. Abortion is an offense against religion which holds that mere metabolism is sacred. Abortion may also be questioned from the side of whether not wanting a new human being to exist is moral or not. But it is definitely not a harm done to any existing human being, and so can't be deemed as an offense to anybody.

*In fact, human is only mind, but this is philosophy.

Does 1 month old baby have consciousness? Can killing a 1 month baby be considered an abortion in an extended sense?

you can take this a step further by saying a person isn't alive until they become aware of their consciousness.

Yeah, I don't think the consciousness thing sells.

You mean it isn't moral to kill people in their sleep? :(

I've been watching ultasound video of abortion with vacuum technique.

The most horrific thing I've ever seen. :(

There is consciousness definitely.
The way how fetus placed his arms in defensive pose and moved his/her little body to evade vacuum tube...

Just horrible.

Abortion is not killing of anyone; abortion is to abort the biological process which would eventually yield a human being.As noted by others, at what point do we become human? The moment of birth is a convenient point in the growth from zygote to adult to mark the point at which humanity is achieved. However, convenient does not necessarily equate to correct. As temur remarks how does killing a one month old baby differ from killing a seven month old fetus? Where do you draw the line?
Most societies prohibit murder because it prevents the victim from realising their potential. In that regard abortion takes on the appearance of the ultimate murder.
A body without consciousness is not a human being, human is both body and mind*, body alone is never a human being; it's just a lump of organs, whether living or not.And therefore, as noted, individuals who are asleep, or in a coma, or drugged, may safely be killed since, they are not conscious.
You may counter that they are not conscious at the moment, but the same may be said of the fetus - it is not conscious at the moment, but given the opportunity it will become conscious.Consciousness never exists before the fetus is delivered, and anything done to the fetus before that is not an action that is done to a human being.Well this is just plain wrong. Consciousness is an elusive property, but it most certainly does not spring into existence upon birth. The level of consciousness of a newborn is extremely limited, but it is indiscernable from the level of consciousness present in the womb.
If your case is to be argued on the presence or absence of consciousness then you will have to permit post natal abortions up to the age of six months, or a year, or two, depending upon the level of consciousness you require to define a human.
And if you say any level defines the human, then you wil have to prohibit abortion for all but the earliest months of fetal life.Ascribing a "sacred" status to a functioning organ has nothing to do with science or morality; it is based on a religious myth that tells the dwelling of a mythical entity, named "soul", in that functioning organ..This fits the philosophical category of utter bilge, a subset of the one titled crap.
Point 1: The fetus is not an organ, it is an assembly of organs. Its humanity is an emergent property of this assembly.
Point 2: No religious myth is involved in the view that believes it is positive (and human) to give all entities a chance to realise their potential. Hence, your subsequent paragraphs, which used this myth based argument, are flawed.

Where do you draw the line?
Most societies prohibit murder because it prevents the victim from realising their potential. In that regard abortion takes on the appearance of the ultimate murder.
But that argument can be extended to banning contraception, or in Monty Python's words: "Every sperm is sacred". Where is the line drawn then? :shrug:

But that argument can be extended to banning contraception, or in Monty Python's words: "Every sperm is sacred". Where is the line drawn then? :shrug:Correct, it is a difficult ethical issue. But the line most certainly should not be drawn at an arbitrary event such as birth, as Hani seems determined to do.

Well yes, Hani's argument (metabolism isn't sacred) could probably be extended to allowing anyone to be killed, provided they're asleep at the time, or maybe not even that . . .

I find it silly that anyone can say a 9 month old foetus has no right to life while a murderer does, but that's what happens when people paint things in black and white.

Does 1 month old baby have consciousness? Can killing a 1 month baby be considered an abortion in an extended sense?

1 month old baby has consciousness. consciousness, and true life beginns when the baby cries for the first time.

you can take this a step further by saying a person isn't alive until they become aware of their consciousness.

I don't think so.

You mean it isn't moral to kill people in their sleep? :(

a sleeping person has consciousness, it's just temporarily absent.

I've been watching ultasound video of abortion with vacuum technique.

The most horrific thing I've ever seen. :(

There is consciousness definitely.
The way how fetus placed his arms in defensive pose and moved his/her little body to evade vacuum tube...

Just horrible.

well science doesn't say that, not everything that moves is conscious.

Ophiolite:

There is a difference between somebody who has been conscious before and one that has never been conscious yet.

The first "was there" and thus he had his real existence which should be respected, he is temporarily absent and you can't decide his fate for him because he has been a real existing human being who might be "back".

A fetus has never existed yet, and thus he is nothing, and if you chose to bring him to existence is a matter that concerns you, and maybe humanity in general, but it doesn't concern him because he is nothing. He is a potential human being not a real existing one.

Abortion is absolutely no different from taking a contraception pill, or even abstaining from having sex. If we should look at "not producing human beings" as a crime then we should not only prevent contraception, but we should also be producing humans as much as we can and in everyway we can, even by artificial fertilization, since not bringing potential humans to life would be immoral. This is not a sane proposition, but surprisingly it is what religion demands; to bring as much people as we can to life!

i think that abortion should be aloud, however i think it's cruler but if the mother does not want the baby we should not make her have it.

I've been watching ultasound video of abortion with vacuum technique.

The most horrific thing I've ever seen. :(

There is consciousness definitely.
The way how fetus placed his arms in defensive pose and moved his/her little body to evade vacuum tube...

Just horrible.

I think the existence of that response sums up the inequities of the consciousness argument.

Abortion...is murder.

but is it right to force a woman to give birth to the baby?

Hmm. I would imagine so, really. The alternative of course is the death of the baby. One could take the view that it's unwanted biological material; yet, so are many things that go unremoved, and not to the actual detriment of their hosts or carriers.

but thats like me forcing you to care for some cat that you realy dont want well a litle diffrent well alot of difference its a very hard subject if only there was a way to tak e the fetus out and give it to some who actuly wants the baby

Well, if you bought the cat, you have to take care of it.

As for later: adoption.

no but for women who dont want to go trough child birth

Like I said: you buy a cat, you feed a cat.

Just like cakes.

what you buy a cake you feed a cake ah however what about rape victems who dont want the baby do u think its wrong that they abort it?

Hmm. I would imagine so, really. The alternative of course is the death of the baby. One could take the view that it's unwanted biological material; yet, so are many things that go unremoved, and not to the actual detriment of their hosts or carriers.

My my. "Hosts or carriers". You must write the comments for the Japanese minister who commented on women and their roles as mothers.

It is never right to force a woman to carry a child for 9 months and then give birth to it, at times to her detriment and possibly even her death. Ask any obstetrician and they will tell you that in a case of an emergency, they will save the mother first and the foetus second. I was told this myself when I begged them to save the baby when we found out that the baby had not died as we had first thought when everything went so wrong.. "No my dear, you are the priority and if we can save the baby, we will"...

You find the concept of arranged marriage to be wrong, but you think women should be forced to carry and birth a child against their will?

What of rape victims? What of a woman whose health is in danger and to carry forward with the pregnancy will result in her death? You cannot say yes to some and no to others. An embryo does not have cognitive thought or recognition or consciousness. Press on a pregnant uterus and the embryo will move due to the pressure of the fluid around it when the uterus is pressed. Pushing a vaccuum into said uterus will disturb the fluid around the embryo and it will look like it is trying to escape. Hell, both my sons looked like they were trying to escape with each ultrasound we had simply because of the pressure put on the uterus by the probe.

The whole notion or image of "the baby" is quite emotive, hence why pro-life supporters use it.

How any human being can support killing a baby is beyond my comprehension.
I especially can't understand how a woman could do that. As for rape, that excuse is old. The chance of getting pregnant during a rape is miniscule. And with all the morning-after drugs out there now, the rape excuse is dead. It still flabbergasts me that people don't care about the 1.5 million babies killed per year, but they freak out about 3,000 killed in war.

1 month old baby has consciousness. consciousness, and true life beginns when the baby cries for the first time.


I don't think so. You are just being arbitrary.

How any human being can support killing a baby is beyond my comprehension.

I suspect a lot of things are beyond your comprehension sandy.

I especially can't understand how a woman could do that.
I especially can't understand how what happens to another woman's womb or happens in it for that matter is really any of your business.

As for rape, that excuse is old. The chance of getting pregnant during a rape is miniscule.
You have scientific data to back this up of course?

And with all the morning-after drugs out there now, the rape excuse is dead.
Oh good grief.

Do you actually know what the morning after pill does? If you did and are pro-life, you would not be hiding behind it as a reason to not have abortions.

The morning after-pill prevents the pregnancy from taking. So if a woman has unprotected sex (either voluntarily or by being raped) and conception occurs (eg there's a baby on the way), the morning afterpill prevents said conception from going any further. Therefore, the morning afterpill can kind of be seen to be a form of abortion, since it stops the pregnancy from continuing.

And not all women are able to go to a doctor to get the morning after-pill. Some are too traumatised to even be able to leave the house for example. Some cannot bear the thought of going to a hospital or calling the police because they stupidly think it is their fault and some cannot bear the thought of having internal examinations, etc, when they report their rape. So no, you cannot say that rape is an excuse.

It still flabbergasts me that people don't care about the 1.5 million babies killed per year, but they freak out about 3,000 killed in war.
When one considers the number of natural abortions that occur each year (miscarriage), I am amazed you are not tearing your hair out in horror.:rolleyes: When a woman has an abortion, she is not killing a cute and cuddly bundle of joy that gurgles and cries as a baby would. Maybe instead of referring to emotive language and argument, you actually read up on abortions (and the morning after-pill) from a scientific standpoint. As in leave the religious text and propaganda behind and actually read what exactly constitutes an abortion before you continue with the debate. Hmm? Educate yourself and broaden your mind a bit.

The point of miscarriage raises an interesting question. If a woman miscarries, are the police and D.A. obliged to investigate her life and habits, and charge her criminally if her actions or omissions are believed to have contributed to the miscarriage?

I don't think so.

i worded my post wrong. replace 'alive' with 'human'

Better a fetus aborted than another unwanted child in the world. It's a matter of killing it humanely or letting it live out a life of misery, neglect or abuse.

Not all children will be adopted, not all children can be taken care of or have parents. Ultimately it is unfair to the child.

Realistically, sex produces offspring regardless of whether they are ready to be parents. Humans have sex recreationally and without responsibility and since you can't regulate it, it would be detrimental to the child not the parent who is not prepared or fit to take care of that offspring.


Abortion is actually humane in the long run.

My my. "Hosts or carriers". You must write the comments for the Japanese minister who commented on women and their roles as mothers.

It is never right to force a woman to carry a child for 9 months and then give birth to it, at times to her detriment and possibly even her death.

Ha! I knew that one would provoke a Bellsian response.

Anyway: no, I didn't say anything about either of those cases. At risk of the two lives, the mother's is...all right, how to put this. Preferred? More valued? I'll let you pick the term as you choose. I agree that the mother should be saved above the child, however; or at her preference.

You find the concept of arranged marriage to be wrong, but you think women should be forced to carry and birth a child against their will?

What of rape victims? What of a woman whose health is in danger and to carry forward with the pregnancy will result in her death? You cannot say yes to some and no to others.

Oh, but I can. I'm a social Darwinist. Danger is one thing, rape another; I have no interest in promoting the proliferation of the genes of rapists or endangering the lives of women.

The whole notion or image of "the baby" is quite emotive, hence why pro-life supporters use it.

Well, you must admit there's probably a reason baby humans have such appeal. But I think the moral case against abortion for other reasons is quite strong; or at least abortion on such terms is indefensible. But others may engage in it or not as they will.

Ha! I knew that one would provoke a Bellsian response.

Yes yes, and I took your bait.

Anyway: no, I didn't say anything about either of those cases. At risk of the two lives, the mother's is...all right, how to put this. Preferred? More valued? I'll let you pick the term as you choose. I agree that the mother should be saved above the child, however; or at her preference.

She is rarely given the preference.

Oh, but I can. I'm a social Darwinist. Danger is one thing, rape another; I have no interest in promoting the proliferation of the genes of rapists or endangering the lives of women.

Then you support abortion. There are no 'if's and but's' on this issue. You are either pro-life or pro-choice. You cannot support abortion for one or two instances and not for others.

Well, you must admit there's probably a reason baby humans have such appeal.
Surely you jest!

I find no appeal in a newborn. I find no appeal in getting up in the middle of the night to be confronted by a screaming child, only to feed said child and then have him screaming for another couple of hours because of wind. I find no appeal in dirty nappies or the copius amount of washing I need to do on a daily basis.

I find appeal in babies when they sleep through the night and are toilet trained.

Don't get me wrong, I adore my 6 week old to my very core and would kill and die for him (and my toddlerfor that matter) without batting an eyelid. But I find no "appeal" in him at the present moment.

But I think the moral case against abortion for other reasons is quite strong;
Yes it is. But you cannot apply your moral beliefs upon others in such a fashion.

or at least abortion on such terms is indefensible.
That is not for you or anyone else to say. A woman gets an abortion for a reason that is justified to her. Abortion is a personal issue. Ergo, you or I cannot tell others how to believe or act in regards to said issue.

But others may engage in it or not as they will.
So you are pro-choice.;)

I don't think so. You are just being arbitrary.

well this is what they teach in med schools.

There are no 'if's and but's' on this issue. You are either pro-life or pro-choice. You cannot support abortion for one or two instances and not for others.

Why not? Why can't one support abortion for, say, rape victims, yet not support abortion as a late form of contraception? Or why can't one support aborting a "medical freak of nature", yet not support other forms of abortion?

I don't get it, Bells, why do you think abortion is an "all or nothing" issue?

I find appeal in babies when they sleep through the night and are toilet trained.

Sounds kinda' like you're talking about a cute little puppy! :D

Baron Max

Why not? Why can't one support abortion for, say, rape victims, yet not support abortion as a late form of contraception? Or why can't one support aborting a "medical freak of nature", yet not support other forms of abortion? Again, How I hate it when good sense, common sense, rationality, logic, morality, ethics and general decency force me to agree with Baron Max.
The transition from gametes, to zygote, to fetus, to newborn, to child, adult has no clear demarcations that allow us to say "this is human, this is not'. I have no trouble with contraception, morning-after pills, or (probably) first trimester abortion, but beyond that my unease steadily increases.
I find wholly abhorrent Bell's postion that I especially can't understand how what happens to another woman's womb or happens in it for that matter is really any of your business.
It is not what is happening to the other person's womb that is in question, it is what is happening to this nascent human being. Certainly there is a balance of rights to be discussed and evaluated, but to paint it as a one sided issue revolving solely around the female strikes me as unbalanced, unjust and self serving.

Then you support abortion. There are no 'if's and but's' on this issue. You are either pro-life or pro-choice. You cannot support abortion for one or two instances and not for others.

My dearest Bells, I most certainly can. I have no such label, specifically; I think abortion (when I think about it) is morally correct in some instances and not others.

Surely you jest!

Oh, come on. Don't you think he has cute chubby cheeks and don't you like his big round eyes? I appreciate the little bugger's running you mad, but isn't he adorable, really?

Not for me, sure: I'm male. ;) But I like them when they can walk around and laugh.

Yes it is. But you cannot apply your moral beliefs upon others in such a fashion.

But people do, and it's called law.

That is not for you or anyone else to say. A woman gets an abortion for a reason that is justified to her. Abortion is a personal issue. Ergo, you or I cannot tell others how to believe or act in regards to said issue.

I abortion would be even more personal for the aborted. But you are imagining that women do nothing for selfish reasons, or that anyone does. This is not true. For example, people still refuse to donate to Myuu. This is selfish.

So you are pro-choice.;)

Why not? Why can't one support abortion for, say, rape victims, yet not support abortion as a late form of contraception? Or why can't one support aborting a "medical freak of nature", yet not support other forms of abortion?

I don't get it, Bells, why do you think abortion is an "all or nothing" issue?


Because I don't think there is a middle ground with the issue of abortion. You are either for or against it. To say you support abortion for some circumstances but not others does not mean you are pro-life.

You can say that you support for some circumstances but not others. But doing so means that you do not take a pro-life stance. Pro-lifers think it is all or nothing. There is no middle ground. Women whose children are deemed to be a "medical freak of nature" are abused and harrassed when visiting clinics that perform abortions, because to pro-lifers, they are committing murder. Pro-choice recognises that a woman has a right to choose to terminate in instances of rape or for medical reasons. Pro-lifers do not.

Sounds kinda' like you're talking about a cute little puppy!
Only without a tail.;)

My dearest Bells, I most certainly can. I have no such label, specifically; I think abortion (when I think about it) is morally correct in some instances and not others.
But would you deny women the right to have an abortion, even though you found it morally repugnant?

That's what the whole argument comes down to. Not what you or I think about "baby killing". But about the right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Oh, come on. Don't you think he has cute chubby cheeks and don't you like his big round eyes? I appreciate the little bugger's running you mad, but isn't he adorable, really?
I appreciate those cute chubby cheeks and big round eyes when said big round eyes are fastly closed as he sleeps. Don't get me wrong. I kiss those little chubby cheeks every chance I get. But at 3am when those "big round eyes" are wide open and looking at me with this little glint of "what is this sleep of which you speak".. I am not so appreciative.

And yes he is adorable. He's been smiling back at us for 2 weeks now and did his first little gurgle back at us a couple of nights ago.. at 2:30am. *Sigh*.. Hard to be cranky when he did the gurgle.. but sleep.. oh glorius sleep.. how I miss thee.

Not for me, sure: I'm male. But I like them when they can walk around and laugh.
My husband is the same. Same for me actually. Although my 19 month old has gotten to the "why?" stage.:bawl:

But people do, and it's called law.
And in this instance, the law has prevented people doing so by allowing for women to legally have an abortion.

Funny that huh?

abortion would be even more personal for the aborted. But you are imagining that women do nothing for selfish reasons, or that anyone does.
Oh I am well aware that women have abortions for purely selfish reasons. The law allows them to be selfish. It is their body and we cannot dictate or force them to carry forward with the pregnancy. Doing so is equally repugnant and selfish.

This is not true. For example, people still refuse to donate to Myuu. This is selfish.
I donate by allowing my weary eyes to peruse through what is written of Myuu. What could be better than donating one's time.;)

But would you deny women the right to have an abortion, even though you found it morally repugnant?

No, because I don't care if other women terminate their pregnancies, ultimately. I'm only concerned about the fitness of my own progeny.

That's what the whole argument comes down to. Not what you or I think about "baby killing". But about the right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy.

Well...in honesty what about the right of the baby not be terminated? What makes it different than us, or "not alive"?

I appreciate those cute chubby cheeks and big round eyes when said big round eyes are fastly closed as he sleeps. Don't get me wrong. I kiss those little chubby cheeks every chance I get. But at 3am when those "big round eyes" are wide open and looking at me with this little glint of "what is this sleep of which you speak".. I am not so appreciative.

And yes he is adorable. He's been smiling back at us for 2 weeks now and did his first little gurgle back at us a couple of nights ago.. at 2:30am. *Sigh*.. Hard to be cranky when he did the gurgle.. but sleep.. oh glorius sleep.. how I miss thee.

I'm not looking forward to the no sleep part. I already get none.

And in this instance, the law has prevented people doing so by allowing for women to legally have an abortion.

Funny that huh?[/quote]

Yes, but what I'm saying is that the law is malleable.

Oh I am well aware that women have abortions for purely selfish reasons. The law allows them to be selfish. It is their body and we cannot dictate or force them to carry forward with the pregnancy. Doing so is equally repugnant and selfish.

But why? We dictate that people can't do lots of things that would be considered selfish. Why not this?

I donate by allowing my weary eyes to peruse through what is written of Myuu. What could be better than donating one's time.;)

Donating one's hard cash. Small bills preferred.

People don't consider who is going to take care of the unwanted children if abortion were illegal. It's not so much about abortion but the ramifications of offspring that are unwanted which is far more inhumane. Also, if you think this planet is crowded now, it would be devastating if every conceived child were born. It would be far worse for society in the long run.

Because I don't think there is a middle ground with the issue of abortion. You are either for or against it. If this is what you believe you are mistaken. You have created a dichotomy between pro-life and pro-choice. This simplistic approach produces great sounds bites, but has little merit when considering complex ethcial issues.

It still flabbergasts me that people don't care about the 1.5 million babies killed per year, but they freak out about 3,000 killed in war.

No no : shakes head : you don't understand, babies are meaningless to people, they have no rewards only take. Adults killed in a war are equally useless but to society they have value because they're not babies... thus we see niether should really be of concern to us. Let the babies never be born, those children would likely grow to become evil and kill someone anyways.. as for the mindless drones in the army, let them die they deserve it for joining.

We must recall here that it is an easier prospect to just make something illegal than work after the source of the problem.

Sex ed., birth control, and a major shift of cultural attitudes about sex are what are needed. Sadly, though, anti-choice, "pro-life" misogynists get in the way.

General education and economic empowerment cannot be overlooked here, either, but political allies of the pro-life misogynists tend to work against that.

How convenient. Create a problem, blame someone else, and then complain, complain, complain. How about doing something useful for once?

A 17 year old pregnant girl - who was told by her doctors , that her baby only would live a few days after birth - was refused the right to go to England and get an abortion ........ now she has gone to high court .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6618911.stm

Yesterday , the final verdict came : she is allowed to get abortion in England ........I couldn´t find a link for the verdict yet ....

The pope - Benedict the 16.th - is now threatening brazillian politicians with excommunication if they support abortion.....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/5/1/215624.shtml?=os

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18569939/

How about doing something useful for once?Do you feel your last post fits such a category?

Ophiolite

Yes, actually, I do. Read the other paragraphs. I tried to keep them short because I've recently received advice from a fellow poster to stop wasting words.

Do you feel those paragraphs are too short, or too general? Very well, I can use more words in making the point. However, barring any greater advice on your part, about the only thing I can do is turn your own question back at you.

That's fine. I was simply curious. I have admired your writing and honesty on many other threads. On this one I thought you were just being gratuitously bitchy, so that your post had no socially redeeming value.

Oh, well, the line was indeed gratuitously bitchy. It's part of my routine; every once in a while, I sink down to the level of my opponents in some obscure way; it's intended as a reminder of what's wrong with that kind of rhetoric.

And I do see the Christian bloc as the greatest challenge to fulfilling its goals. American Christians, especially in the political arena, are masters of raising devils of their own invention.

*In fact, human is only mind, but this is philosophy.Come again?

If you have to resort to telling me what I can and cant believe the your arguements and patience must be very thin. I am not so much pro-life as anti-muder. I am also very leery of people who like to deny rights to the weak and voiceless.

There is always a reason to take other peoples rights away. Abortion is taking the right to life away in order to protect someones right to privacy. If the abortion is done to protect the mothers life that is triage and is just selecting who will have the best chance at survival. I have no problem with the abortion. I can even see abortion is the case of severe genetic defects but I worry about who gets to decide what is a serious enough defect to qualify. I have seen some seriously messed up children as a nurse and believe that abortion would have been a kindness to some of them. I have also seen the joy and happiness that the smallest things bringsome of these children and it is enough to make you cry. Abortion for convienience is the destruction of a human life based on an arbitrary age value. We can argue all year about when the fetus becomes human. It is all so arbitrary at x age you are accorded less rights than an animal. At y age you are human and should be treated as such. That is so much blabercacky. we are allowing abortions to occur on children with brainwaves how much more human can you get?

Dark about 30% of my family has served in the military and you have stated that thay and I deserve to die. Would you clarify that statement I do not believe that you hate me that much. What have I ever done or my familydone that you hate us so.

What have I ever done or my familydone that you hate us so.30% of your family have served in the military.

you can take this a step further by saying a person isn't alive until they become aware of their consciousness.

so nearly 100% of species on the earth are not alive then.

peace.

If you have to resort to telling me what I can and cant believe the your arguements and patience must be very thin. I am not so much pro-life as anti-muder. I am also very leery of people who like to deny rights to the weak and voiceless.

This would include then those parents who indoctrinate their children into believing that they are born in sin, are in debt to jesus, have sinful bodies adn urges that must be controlled (especially in girls) and so on.

I know, you have not advocated these things.

But so much of the 'concern' on the part of the pro-life side does not seem like love when I see how they 'love' children who they teach to hate themselves.

And this is not noticed or commented on by other less religious or fanatical pro-life people.

Or good, now the baby is incarnated. Let the free for all of knives in the soul begin.

And since this hate masked as love is so obvious in these people, I have to ask myself, really everyone should ask themselves, what is really going on here?

It's a safe way to express a deep hatred of women and sex.

Now I am not saying that is your position. But are you honest and confront the antilife energy in those people with the same consistancy you are 'anti-murder.'

There are many forms of living death.

oh please, you people disgust me. you waste so much time and finger strength (not to mention moments of peace) blabbering on about why it's wrong what if rape but it looks so cute it wont be happy life is sacred blah blah blah. here's my opinion (im in the right place, right?):
life is such an arbirtrary thing that in the long run, it doesn't even matter. you won't go to hell for killing a baby. there is no hell (different thread?). there is life here on Earth. here's a novel idea.........make your own freakin morals!!! you americans take naps on the shoulders of the giants of the past. you are too lazy reading propganda and over subjective articles that you have lost the ability to think! number 1, education cannot happen if you follow a religion that leaves no room for doubt (doctrine). point 2, if one does follow a doctrine, it is the poor fool who tries to circumvent the obviously (strong) beliefs of his or her neihbor. you religious people disgust me. like some loud obnoxious fat woman said on tv: "I brung ya intuh dis worl', an' ah'l take yah'outta it too! (in regards for how i feel about, you death, and babies. puhleeez)

They also keep ignoring the fact its better to be aborted than be miserable, neglected or worse abused in the world. It's much worse to live in misery than to be euthanized. Who is going to feed and take care of all of those unwanted children? They don't take into account how many orphans, unwanted and disabled children exist right now. How many who are living in suffering and being used or sold as slaves because they are unwanted or can't be taken care of. And they want more freaking people in the world so they can suffer more heinous crap so they can grow up to be misfits who will need to be locked up or continue the dysfunctional cycle or irresponsibility as nature is nasty and low and doesn't care if a person is a fit parent or is ready. It doesn't care if its from rape, if its a teenager on crack, if its an aids baby or adultery or any other fucked up situation that would be more detrimental to the CHILD not the person just pumping the baby out!

On this basis it would be a great kindness to kill a large proportion of the world's population. (It also sounds from your perception of the world that you might well be one of them.)

That's insincere and overdramatic. It's about prevention and about the future. If you want people breeding out of control then we can apply the same logic to pets and not get them fixed as we know there are too many animals in shelters that will never have homes and are a burden to taxpayers and are euthanized by the millions every year. Prevention is the key. It's about being responsible however you have to do it.

On this basis it would be a great kindness to kill a large proportion of the world's population. (It also sounds from your perception of the world that you might well be one of them.)

i see nothing wrong with this. people like you would make a stink, though. and this is unnecessary, however, because of suicide. most people are afraid of suicide and its religious taboo. others simply live for something, sometimes just to survive for the only reason of beating the odds or overcoming hardship or whatever, like in that "a child called it" or whatever it was called book.

On this basis it would be a great kindness to kill a large proportion of the world's population. (It also sounds from your perception of the world that you might well be one of them.)

and that's not a very nice thing to say. she's simply stating her opinion, you don't have to be an asshole if you have a different one. you should discuss with her not degrade her for having her own opinion, like all six something billion (and counting) of us do. happy discussing
bob

That's insincere and overdramatic. It's about prevention and about the future. If you want people breeding out of control then we can apply the same logic to pets and not get them fixed as we know there are too many animals in shelters that will never have homes and are a burden to taxpayers and are euthanized by the millions every year. Prevention is the key. It's about being responsible however you have to do it.

if i were religious (which I'm not), and pompous (which i like to think that i'm not) and stupid (which i really hope that im not), then i would say that "god created man in his own image [pfft man createdgodout of his own image]. thus man is special. and thinking abstractly, he certainly is, if he can make people believe in a "god". i say atheists are the only sane ones around (i know i'm gonna get firebombed for this but thinking positively that will only lend for a counterattack).
touche

and that's not a very nice thing to say. she's simply stating her opinion, you don't have to be an asshole if you have a different one. you should discuss with her not degrade her for having her own opinion, like all six something billion (and counting) of us do. happy discussing
bobPlease be good enough to point out what is 'not a very nice thing' in pointing out the logical consequences of a poster's own opinion?
In what way is pointing out the logical consequences of one's opinion, being an asshole?
In what way is detecting a rather poor self image in an individual's writing (and commenting on it) being an asshole?
Don't you think a short sharp shock might be one way of helping said individual to reconsider their position?
Do you defend the notion it is acceptable to murder a few billion people because you believe them to be miserable and unhappy? Oh, wait a moment, you do, and did exactly so in your prior post.

We don't need to kill the people already born but birth control and safe abortion available to everyone would go a long way in correcting a lot of problems with family breakdown and social ills.

im with u there

how about if you dont want children then dont open your legs?

thats good birth control. i saw my unborn child in the womb a few weeks ago for the first time it was moving about infront of me on the ultrasound scan. it could be aborted at this stage. and i find that horrible its no different than murder to me, apart fromt he child has no way of fighting back in there,


peace.

how about if you dont want children then dont open your legs?

thats good birth control. i saw my unborn child in the womb a few weeks ago for the first time it was moving about infront of me on the ultrasound scan. it could be aborted at this stage. and i find that horrible its no different than murder to me, apart fromt he child has no way of fighting back in there,


peace.

Unrealistic idiot, it's about what happens AFTER they are born. They don't have a choice whether they are unwanted, going to end up on the streets, orphanages, sold into slavery. Get it? I don't give a shit about your emotionalism toward your child you want. If you want it then it means you will probably take care of it but if abortion were illegal and people were having children that were unwanted it doesn't take much brains or forethought to understand the negative or unhealthy ramifications that means for a society. As well prick, the responsibility doesn't just completely rest with the woman.

Peta9s vitriol in her last post suggests a further examination of her thoughts.They also keep ignoring the fact its better to be aborted than be miserable, neglected or worse abused in the world. Really! How would you know this? Are you miserable, neglected and abused? If so you have my sympathy. do you need to be miserable,, neglected and abused for your entire life? No you don't. You, and every other adult has a choice. It is often a damnably difficult choice, that may require real courage to make, with real risk, in some cases, of physical injury, or death, but the choice is there.
You wish to remove that choice from the adult, by removing the life from the child. In this regard I am decidedly pro-choice.
It's much worse to live in misery than to be euthanized. You are presuming that many/most/all of the aborted fetuses would grow up to miserable for all of their lives. Where is your evidence for that? More to the point you actually think euthenasia would be better for everyone who is miserable. My, how compassionate you are.
Who is going to feed and take care of all of those unwanted children? They don't take into account how many orphans, unwanted and disabled children exist right now.Now there is an interesting sentence that reveals exactly the depths of the indifference in your superficially concerned position. You are now including orphans and the disabled automatically into the group of miserable people. You imply that these orphans and disabled would be better off killed, than allowed to continue living in misery. I believe many orphans and disabled would take issue with you on this point.

How many who are living in suffering and being used or sold as slaves because they are unwanted or can't be taken care of. And they want more freaking people in the world so they can suffer more You don't think it would be more productive to deal with the faults in society that lead to slavery? Apparently not. Why don't we just take the logical step and euthenise someone when they contract cancer, just so we can prevent their suffering. And they want more freaking people in the world so they can suffer more heinous crap so they can grow up to be misfits who will need to be locked up or continue the dysfunctional cycle or irresponsibility as nature is nasty and low and doesn't care if a person is a fit parent or is ready. It doesn't care if its from rape, if its a teenager on crack, if its an aids baby or adultery or any other fucked up situation that would be more detrimental to the CHILD not the person just pumping the baby out!You probably have no idea how much you are revealing about yourself in this burst of bitter, resentful speech.
I'm sorry you feel life has dealt you a raw hand, but trust me, your personal ills do not merit mass euthenasia of an allegedly miserable population.

Peta9s vitriol in her last post suggests a further examination of her thoughts.Really! How would you know this? Are you miserable, neglected and abused? If so you have my sympathy. do you need to be miserable,, neglected and abused for your entire life? No you don't. You, and every other adult has a choice. It is often a damnably difficult choice, that may require real courage to make, with real risk, in some cases, of physical injury, or death, but the choice is there.
You wish to remove that choice from the adult, by removing the life from the child. In this regard I am decidedly pro-choice.
You are presuming that many/most/all of the aborted fetuses would grow up to miserable for all of their lives. Where is your evidence for that? More to the point you actually think euthenasia would be better for everyone who is miserable. My, how compassionate you are.
Now there is an interesting sentence that reveals exactly the depths of the indifference in your superficially concerned position. You are now including orphans and the disabled automatically into the group of miserable people. You imply that these orphans and disabled would be better off killed, than allowed to continue living in misery. I believe many orphans and disabled would take issue with you on this point.

You don't think it would be more productive to deal with the faults in society that lead to slavery? Apparently not. Why don't we just take the logical step and euthenise someone when they contract cancer, just so we can prevent their suffering. You probably have no idea how much you are revealing about yourself in this burst of bitter, resentful speech.
I'm sorry you feel life has dealt you a raw hand, but trust me, your personal ills do not merit mass euthenasia of an allegedly miserable population.

You are a patheticly dishonest person. You know you are derailing the thread by purposely evading the point and focusing on me. I never said we should mass euthanize anyone and you keep harping on that. It's obvious I'm pro-choice and I gave reasons for it. You pretend to be compassionate about the life of a fetus without considering the reallife ramifications. I think if a crack mother wanted to abort her baby, it would probably be best and a myriad of other bad situations.

I am pro-choice and evidently you are not. All that mumbo jumbo above and you are still ignoring the fact most of these children are unwanted and if birth control, sex education and abortion were readily available for everyone it will help improve society in the long run.

You idiot, must understand that birth control and safe abortion is actually new and you want to turn back the clock and return things to the dark ages.

Really! How would you know this? Are you miserable, neglected and abused? If so you have my sympathy. do you need to be miserable,, neglected and abused for your entire life? No you don't. You, and every other adult has a choice. It is often a damnably difficult choice, that may require real courage to make, with real risk, in some cases, of physical injury, or death, but the choice is there.

And this is the funniest part. Are you trying to be a comedian? Are you living in some ivory tower and can't look around and see that teenage pregnancies and crackbabies and women having babies for welfare money etc or from religious fear rather than actually wanting to be parents is unhealthy and probably be abusive? Do you really think these children have a good chance of becoming good parents themselves realistically? These are living beings, it's not like taking a dump and that is exactly how many people unfortunately treat unwanted children from an act called sex. I think it's best a fetus be aborted than to unfit parents that don't want it anyways from an act of recreational sex and if you can't see that or understand the larger societal implications of that then there is nothing more I can say.

Peta9,
Point 1: I am in favour of legal abortion. Nowhere in any of my posts have I stated the contrary.
Point 2: I also favour robust sex education, promotion of birth control, and application of a compassionate, constraining, yet realistic moral code.
Point 3: If I have derailed the thread it is merely maintaining the derailment you instituted. You were the one who stated "It's much worse to live in misery than to be euthanized."
Point 4: Each of your posts is filled with emotional terminology and overflowing bile that one would typically find in individuals who have low self esteem. If that is not the case perhaps you could learn to exercise better self control.
Point 5: What I find morally offensive is your petulant disregard for the rights of individuals; your ignorance of the possibility that bastards, orphans and the disabled are people too and can live productive happy lives, and that they have a right to do so; your foolish presumption that if you are miserable once, you are miserable for all time; your abrogation of responsibility, in that you make little or no commitment to providing support for those who are in need, who are abandoned; your selfishness in being unprepared to provide such support directly, or indirectly.

Yours sincerely,
ophiolite
pathetically dishonest idiot person

Unrealistic idiot, it's about what happens AFTER they are born. They don't have a choice whether they are unwanted, going to end up on the streets, orphanages, sold into slavery. Get it? I don't give a shit about your emotionalism toward your child you want. If you want it then it means you will probably take care of it but if abortion were illegal and people were having children that were unwanted it doesn't take much brains or forethought to understand the negative or unhealthy ramifications that means for a society. As well prick, the responsibility doesn't just completely rest with the woman.


why the hell are you so rude all of the time and you call me emotional.

if you dont want a baby then dont have sex, thats what sex is for dick, reproduction.

in every one of your posts i have read your a cock why are you so angry at everything, you little miserable asswipe.

i quote from you,

"look around and see that teenage pregnancies and crackbabies and women having babies for welfare money"

so if they want the baby for money why are they going to have an abortion. or do you want forced abortions for everybody?

peace.

Mod Hat - (Ahem!)

Enough. Anyone ever read the poem about the egg that would not hatch? What, need we sling so many arrows as to prove that abortion is somehow the wise option for all of humanity? Do we really need to act as if we are poster children for abortion and birth control?

Get happy, or at least decent, please. Oh, wait, that's an order.

Thank you ....

You appear to be asking, excuse me - ordering us - not to argue in favour of abortion. If your intent was solely to encourage us to do so in a dignified manner I'm afraid it missed the mark. Would you clarify please.

Mod Hat - Clarification for the short bus

You will conduct yourselves in a reasonably civilized and productive manner. It seems absolutely ridiculous to be arguing the merits of abortion when people's conduct speaks so forcefully of the merits of abortion. Ever hear that joke about the cure for AIDS? Everybody stops having sex for the duration of one human life cycle. No more AIDS. (No more humanity, either. Get the picture?) This discussion is nothing more than a testament to the power of extinction to solve all our human ills.

Perhaps I should suspend any sense of humor when wearing my mod hat. It doesn't translate well on the short bus.

if a women was raped and she did not want the baby who are we to say you are not to abort and must keep it and take care of it.

Don't feel like quoting, but someone said that they are partially supportive of abortion, depending on the situation. So, I ask whoever said this, why is it alright to perform the operation and end one of those 'precious' lives in one situation, but not perform the operation and end a life in another? The methods and outcomes are exactly the same, regardless of why the abortion is happening.

The only way I would support the illegalization of abortion is if everyone who voted for it or who is pro-life took in all the unwanted babies that wouldn't have existed if abortion was legal.

The only way I would support the illegalization of abortion is if everyone who voted for it or who is pro-life took in all the unwanted babies that wouldn't have existed if abortion was legal.

Sadly, regardless of abortion, those pro-lifers are behind by about 110,000 a year. So are the traditionalists who oppose gay marriage and parentage.

Unfortunately, I am unable to responsibly speculate regarding your question; I have a "dryfoot" policy--if you make it to the world, welcome.

Sadly, regardless of abortion, those pro-lifers are behind by about 110,000 a year. So are the traditionalists who oppose gay marriage and parentage.

Unfortunately, I am unable to responsibly speculate regarding your question; I have a "dryfoot" policy--if you make it to the world, welcome.


am i allowed to abort a babies life when it is 10 months old? or aka when it is 1 month old?


peace.

I have a dryfoot policy: 1 month out of the womb is a dry foot.

indeed.


peace.