[Kazan]

murder is only terminating the life on an individual a fetus is not an individual

as for the rest of your post -it's typical rhetorical and is completely pointless

-----

Even if a fetus had rights (Which it does not - since it is not an individual) they wouldn't trump the mothers rights.  So you have a one persons rights (bodily integrity) vs another 'persons' "right-to-live" (no such right)

Who's rights hold weight?  Now you're forcing a situation where you have to quantify the strength of one persons claim to rights against the others

so the only way you can reasonably quantify that by who is older - and that's unquestionably the mother.

[aldo_14]

A foetus is not, as Kazan said, a human being.  It has not reached (up to the point where abortion is prohibited) a stage where it can be considered an independent, living entity - but is rather an abstract collection of cells.

If you look at it in that exact point in time, then it's not any more human than a cell culture.  If you look at potential, it's not any more valid because that abstract collection of cells could be the next Ghandi or the next Hitler.  If you look at murder as destroying the possibility of life, then destroying frozen sperm or eggs is murder.

I think the pro-choice argument is breathtakingly simple - the mother makes the choice whether or not to devote their own body to nourishing & growing a fertilised egg.  I think that choice should be preserved, and I think the diversity of opinion pro & against shows that a prohibitive law would be unfair.

(as well as the argument in my first post in this thread)

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Meet the Colossus! The largest space faring warship ever constructed!

That has got to rank as the best comeback I've seen in a very long tims.

[.::Tin Can::.]

Hows that?

[vyper]

Just wait till you're in a position where someone you know has to make a choice like this Deep, you'll suddenly realize how clean cut it is NOT.

[Liberator]

You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut.  Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.

What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me.  If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home.  If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act.  That is becoming pregnant.  There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it.  It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator
You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut.  Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.

a position being clean cut doesn't make it correct liberator

What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me.

it does no such thing - because not wearing protection carries the risk of STDs
choosing to have sex does not constitute forfeiture of ones right to bodily integrity

If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home.

irrevelant pseudotautology

If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act.

Yeah - it's called STDs - and if you think abortion being legal promotes promiscuous sex you don't understand causal relationships at all

 There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it.

Abortion being the only one of them that doesn't _Force_ her to sacrifice her bodily integrity - the only one which doesnt' violate the Bad Samaritan Doctrine and therefore _MUST_ be a legal option otherwise her rights are violated (Engaging in sex, not wearing protection, do not constitute forfeiture of ones rights)

  It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.

if you even believe for one second that even a significant minority percentage of abortions are for this reasoning then you're grossly misinformed (of course that's to be expected - antichoicers need to promote this false view of abortion to help their position)

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
You misunderstand our position, the position is clean cut.  Abortion is wrong in all but the most lifethreatening circumstances.

What needs to be added is this, it takes away the responsibility of the sexual act, which is what this boils down to for me.  If you play, you've got to be willing to pay or you go home.  If you have promiscuous sex with multiple partners, with or without protection, you have to be willing to take the responsibility of that act.  That is becoming pregnant.  There are options available if the mother doesn't want to keep it.  It's just a matter of convenience so the slut who get's the abortion can keep up her promiscuous lifestyle.

Why is promiscous sex wrong, then? (from a biological perspective it's good, diversifies the gene pool)

[01010]

SEX IS BAD AND EVIL.

Also, I like foetus on toast. Mmmm.

[Mongoose]

"Bodily integrity"--Ha!  By having sex in the first place, the woman has to risk that "bodily integrity."  There's absolutely no reason why this is not true.  Any half-wit knows that sex has an inherent chance of pregnancy, even with contraceptives.  If you're not willing to take that risk, you shouldn't be having sex.  I don't think it can get any more clear-cut.

Aldo, as I said before, sperm and egg cells by themselves do not represent actual life; left to their own devices, they'll do nothing more than float around.  It's a very big step up to a fertilized egg, a genetically unique new lifeform that is genetically programmed to grow and develop over the nine months of pregnancy.  A fertilized egg doesn't have the "potential" for life--it is human life.  As for not being an individual:  why is a fetus not an individual?  Don't give me "it depends on the mother's body"; we have people whose entire lives depend on ventilators, and they're not seen as a part of the machine that allows them to live.  As I said above, the mother bears the responsibility of caring for her unborn child; unwanted or not, it is the result of her conscious choice to have sexual intercourse.  Also, for that matter, if you're going to define a fetus as an "abstract collection of cells," by that logic, every human being is a similar abstract collection of cells. Stop and think about that for a moment:  every cell in your body was derived from that single fertilized egg.  So, what makes you different from it?  If we're all clumps of cells, what's wrong with murdering anyone you feel like?  And if you define some point of development as a "point of humanity," why can't it just as easily be pushed farther and farther back?  When you step back and look at it, the moment you were conceived, everthing that is you was contained in that tiny cell.  And yet, it's not "human."  Riiight...  Liberator is dead-on:  abortion is murder.  It's as simple as that.  Try explaining that to a feminazi, though...

Also, Kazan, way to go on completely ignoring my post and spewing out some psychobabble BS.  Hope your intellect is getting to be well-fed.  I just can't wait for the day when the judicial mockery that is Roe v. Wade is overturned; all of your "logic" won't mean a thing then.  The people of this country are slowly starting to wake up and realize that abortion does involve the ending of a human life.  This holocaust will not be allowed to continue; the unborn will finally have a voice and the "unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

[Ransom]

01010 you are eating the soul of our future! Repent and may God have mercy on you for your selfish massacre of potential lifeforms!

Chicken eggs are potentially chickens, I believe we should ban eating of chicken eggs as it is a cruel and savage act which prevents a potential chicken from having a chance at life. And stop eating that beef, by eating that you are promoting the slaughter of cows and other tasty animals.

(All comments made in this post are beans and should not be taken seriously - but for the record I agree with pro-choice)

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan
choosing to have sex does not constitute forfeiture of ones right to bodily integrity

Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.

you don't understand causal relationships at all

Oh, I don't know, seems to me your acting like a bunch of animals acting on instinct alone, less than human.  They used to kill sluts who slept around.

if you even believe for one second that even a significant minority percentage of abortions are for this reasoning then you're grossly misinformed

Crackhead sluts having sex with or for their dealers to get their next hit, teenagers who should have known better, ect.  Need I go on?  
I am aware that not all abortions performed are for convenience, I also don't pretend that they are all for the benefit of the mother either.  You talk like having an abortion is like pulling up to the drivethru and ordering a burger with a side of fries.  It's a major surgical procedure with loads of health risks for the patient even if it's done in a hospital.  All I want abortions limited to only when medically neccessary.

If you want rut around like some beast in heat, I won't and can't stop you.  But I will be damned before I condone the mass murder of mid-late term abortions.

Oh, BTW, a slut can be either a male or a female.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose

Aldo, as I said before, sperm and egg cells by themselves do not represent actual life; left to their own devices, they'll do nothing more than float around.  It's a very big step up to a fertilized egg, a genetically unique new lifeform that is genetically programmed to grow and develop over the nine months of pregnancy.  A fertilized egg doesn't have the "potential" for life--it is human life.  As for not being an individual:  why is a fetus not an individual?  Don't give me "it depends on the mother's body"; we have people whose entire lives depend on ventilators, and they're not seen as a part of the machine that allows them to live.  As I said above, the mother bears the responsibility of caring for her unborn child; unwanted or not, it is the result of her conscious choice to have sexual intercourse.  Also, for that matter, if you're going to define a fetus as an "abstract collection of cells," by that logic, every human being is a similar abstract collection of cells. Stop and think about that for a moment:  every cell in your body was derived from that single fertilized egg.  So, what makes you different from it?  If we're all clumps of cells, what's wrong with murdering anyone you feel like?  And if you define some point of development as a "point of humanity," why can't it just as easily be pushed farther and farther back?  When you step back and look at it, the moment you were conceived, everthing that is you was contained in that tiny cell.  And yet, it's not "human."  Riiight...  Liberator is dead-on:  abortion is murder.  It's as simple as that.  Try explaining that to a feminazi, though...

The purpose of sperm & eggs are to create life.  Each one represents half of a unique genetic code that forms a human being.

A foetusis an abstract collection of cells because the cells have not diversified into their specific forms.  This is why stem cells are so prized - they are non differentiated cells.  So at the stage of inital development, the foetus is simply a a collection of as yet undifferentiated cells.

consciousness occurs when those cells have differentiated to a degree that a brain - as well as other organs that a human being requires to live - has formed.  Before that, there is no consciousness, and thus no individual.  After this point, abortion is considered illegal in most (all?) countries that allow it.
(Like you said, if you push this principle far enough, then the simple loss of eggs or sperm would then be considered 'murder', or 'half murder' if you base it on genetic quantity)

With regards to the responsiblity of the female, if it is her choice to have sex it is also her choice whether or not to have a child.  As it is her body which will provide the raw materials, she should have a say.  (it's also worth noting that abortion isn't simply some woman screwing around - a 'slut' as lib so eloquently put it - and callously going for a quick op to avoid the hassle of a child)

I see it as simple.  If you can provide scientific proof that a foetus has consciouness prior to the accepted period, then you can call abortion murder.   Otherwise, it isn't because there is no scientifically  definable individual to murder.

[Kazan]

Originally posted by Liberator


Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.

 

legally, and ethically incorrect

[Kazan]

Mongoose: you haven't been worth replying to in depth this entire thread, because you have been engaged in nothing but demagoguery and attempts at character assasination.

If you think that Roe V Wade will be overturned you're woefully misinformed - the only way that it could possible be done is GWB managing to appoint judges would who rule by their religions over the consitution of this country.  

BTW: I was waiting for one of you to attach Bodily Integrity.  I guess since you purport that the "Right to bodily integrity" doesn't exist I get to cleave your arms, legs and genitalia you from.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator


Yes it does, you voluntarily give up that right when, as a girl, you spread your legs for anybody that comes by, or as a guy, if you stick your member in any conveinent orifice.

Oh, I don't know, seems to me your acting like a bunch of animals acting on instinct alone, less than human.  They used to kill sluts who slept around.

Crackhead sluts having sex with or for their dealers to get their next hit, teenagers who should have known better, ect.  Need I go on?  
I am aware that not all abortions performed are for convenience, I also don't pretend that they are all for the benefit of the mother either.  You talk like having an abortion is like pulling up to the drivethru and ordering a burger with a side of fries.  It's a major surgical procedure with loads of health risks for the patient even if it's done in a hospital.  All I want abortions limited to only when medically neccessary.

If you want rut around like some beast in heat, I won't and can't stop you.  But I will be damned before I condone the mass murder of mid-late term abortions.

Oh, BTW, a slut can be either a male or a female.

I notice you;ve not given a reason why consensual sex is bad, but rather quoted a bunch of lazy stereotypes, crude insults and aimed at some easy targets (crackhead sluts?  teenagers?  Why not go for immigrants and complete the set?)

Oh, and by pointing out the seriousness of an abortion operation, you've also helped illustrate that the decision to have one is not taken casually, which illustrates the importance of such a choice and that it is not take lightly.

[Deepblue]

But it will develop a conciousness if it is not destroyed first. That is murder. That is like killing someone in a como in cold blood. They don't have a thought in their mind so its not murder right? Besides I always hated the guy and he would just make my life miserable. Thats the attitude you have. Its wrong.

[Liberator]

Originally posted by Kazan


legally, and ethically incorrect

explain

aldo, the problem I have is that they don't think that far ahead.  They wouldn't have to risk an abortion if they actually thought about the act instead of going with the instinct to **** their brains out.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Deepblue
But it will develop a conciousness if it is not destroyed first. That is murder. That is like killing someone in a como in cold blood. They don't have a thought in their mind so its not murder right? Besides I always hated the guy and he would just make my life miserable. Thats the attitude you have. Its wrong.

eh?  Don't know what the hell you're on about the latter part.

Simply, the law does not deal with 'the future'.  It deals with the present, and when the foetus is not conscious.  If the law was expanded to examine the future consequences, then you'd be walking onto the shakiest of grounds - because you cannot prove how a child will develop, whether or not it will form a consciousness, whether or not it will be miscarried, etc.  What you are debating, is the possible development of a set of undifferentiated cells.

If you expand the murder analogy, then murder is defendable on a whole through speculating what the actions of the victim might be - i.e 'he would have attacked me if I hadn't killed him'.  Law cannot deal with the unknown, the unproveable -in other words, the future.

Law, deals with facts, and facts alone.  The fact is that in the timeframe in which abortion is legal, a foetus has not developed an individual human consciouness.

[vyper]

@Deep : No you retard the person in the coma had already developed a level of sentience (sp?). The egg/feutus/et al has not.

You're making very desperate arguments.