"The first thing I'd do as president is..."

[B5150]

Exactly where the problem arises...when does it qualify as being classified as a "human being"?

Let's consider the facts in the matter that bring IT to existence in the first place.

Two human beings with healthy function reproductive systems cause the sperm of a male human being to fertilize the egg of a female human being.

It's would not be a leap of logic or reason to consider it a fact that if two human beings participate in the act of human reproduction that they are partaking in the process of human reprodcution. They are replicating - reproducing an other human being.

Let's further discuss the idea of when something is classified a human being. The physiological premise that you present is - at what state of development of this replication is IT considered a human being?

I proposed that it is qualified a human being first and foremost as it is a product of the process of human reproduction - replicating - a human being.

When human beings replicate there are several states of development in the process. As stated there is the fertilization process. Then comes the gestation period where the human fertilized egg of the human being becomes a human embryo. The human embryo progresses along the process of development as a human fetus and so on until it is considered full term gestation human.

Now lets consider further this process. A human fetus or human baby comes into the world through "human child birth". Yet it is only a human infant newborn. There are many phases that it will undergo in development...which I am not going to recite because I have not the medical knowledge to recite these in pediatric terminology.

But lets further follow the process. A human child spends most years in human development - human pre-adolescence, human puberty, human adulthood and so forth.

At what stage is the human development process complete that this IT can be considered a "human being". Is it before human puberty, when it's human reproductive organs are functional after human puberty, or does it take place later in life into it's a human teenager - early twenties when it's fully formed human body further process it's human development until it possess a fully developed human brain - integral part of the human CNS?

Human beings reproduce human beings. The process of human reproduction begins at the fertilization of a human egg where the process of human gestation begins. The human development processes only begins at fertilization and continued development of a human being takes place many years after gestation.

To qualify a time during the human gestation period that a fertilized human egg can be slaughtered is equal to suggesting that there is a time qualified at any other time after the human gestation period and the subsequent human development process that a human may be slaughtered.

Fact - human beings reproduce human beings.

 

[Rugger]

For me as soon as there's a heart flicker, it's a living human.

 

[manifesto]

Let's consider the facts in the matter that bring IT to existence in the first place.

Two human beings with healthy function reproductive systems cause the sperm of a male human being to fertilize the egg of a female human being.

It's would not be a leap of logic or reason to consider it a fact that if two human beings participate in the act of human reproduction that they are partaking in the process of human reprodcution. They are replicating - reproducing an other human being.

Let's further discuss the idea of when something is classified a human being. The physiological premise that you present is - at what state of development of this replication is IT considered a human being?

I proposed that it is qualified a human being first and foremost as it is a product of the process of human reproduction - replicating - a human being.

When human beings replicate there are several states of development in the process. As stated there is the fertilization process. Then comes the gestation period where the human fertilized egg of the human being becomes a human embryo. The human embryo progresses along the process of development as a human fetus and so on until it is considered full term gestation human.

Now lets consider further this process. A human fetus or human baby comes into the world through "human child birth". Yet it is only a human infant newborn. There are many phases that it will undergo in development...which I am not going to recite because I have not the medical knowledge to recite these in pediatric terminology.

But lets further follow the process. A human child spends most years in human development - human pre-adolescence, human puberty, human adulthood and so forth.

At what stage is the human development process complete that this IT can be considered a "human being". Is it before human puberty, when it's human reproductive organs are functional after human puberty, or does it take place later in life into it's a human teenager - early twenties when it's fully formed human body further process it's human development until it possess a fully developed human brain - integral part of the human CNS?

Human beings reproduce human beings. The process of human reproduction begins at the fertilization of a human egg where the process of human gestation begins. The human development processes only begins at fertilization and continued development of a human being takes place many years after gestation.

To qualify a time during the human gestation period that a fertilized human egg can be slaughtered is equal to suggesting that there is a time qualified at any other time after the human gestation period and the subsequent human development process that a human may be slaughtered.

Fact - human beings reproduce human beings.

Well said B...

 

[Mulletsoldier]

The waiting period is a good idea. Yes the three days is unfortunate, but what would be more unfortanate is a non-raped pregnant woman having a bad day and deciding to get an abortion, and regretting it the next day.

My point is that marriage is reversible and there is a waiting period of 72 hours. Abortion is in no way reversible and there is no waiting period required.

I'm sure the justification for the marriage waiting is that you wouldn't want to do something you'd regret. It seems that an abortion should get at least the waiting period, as the potential for regret is greater since its an action that can't be undone.

This is really almost a non-issue. Only 2-3% of rape cases actually lead to impregnation. So the justification of abortion based on rape is like legalizing the running of red lights, because you may have to run one someday to save someone who is about to commit suicide.

All three of you have experience as impregnated rape victims, correct? As I am quite sure none of you have, let us refrain, out of respect for those who do have experience in this particular field, from making objective statements on what is, and what is not an issue. Shall we?

Now, the point which all three of you, and a few others in this thread are missing, is that Post-Viability Abortions are not a free-for-all kill order. They are to be used with the utmost discretion, in the most dire circumstances. I would hope those with especially stringent religious biases would provide better qualifications for justifying one life over another.

Again, I post this video:

 

[B5150]

Now, the point which all three of you, and a few others in this thread are missing, is that Post-Viability Abortions are not a free-for-all kill order. They are to be used with the utmost discretion, in the most dire circumstances. I would hope those with especially stringent religious biases would provide better qualifications for justifying one life over another.

I've not missed it and have emphasized that the current verbiage of "distress" is very ambiguous and as it stands is left to the discretion of whom? Abortionist medical practitioner? Anti-abortion medical practitioner? The distressed women? A board of review of abortion rights activists? A board of review of anti-abortion activists?

One case sets president. One president sets motions. One motion can rectify or amend. One amendment...and so on.

Edit: BTW I am not looking at this through any religious or faith glasses. I'm looking at this procedurally - what's the process and procedure?

 

[RobInKuwait]

All three of you have experience as impregnated rape victims, correct? As I am quite sure none of you have, let us refrain, out of respect for those who do have experience in this particular field, from making objective statements on what is, and what is not an issue. Shall we?

Now, the point which all three of you, and a few others in this thread are missing, is that Post-Viability Abortions are not a free-for-all kill order. They are to be used with the utmost discretion, in the most dire circumstances. I would hope those with especially stringent religious biases would provide better qualifications for justifying one life over another.

Being an Atheist I have no religious bias. All I said was that in Maryland, by law I have to wait 3 days to get married, but I can get an abortion this afternoon. I don't agree with the marriage waiting period, but I think if you can justify that, there's no reason not to justify a waiting period on abortions. Why is marriage a decision that requires time to contemplate, but not abortion?

As far as the, "you've never been raped, so this is none of your business" argument, I think that's an attempt to circumvent a moral question that applies to society, not just the pregnant woman. Why do those who have never served care if there are gays in the military? Because it is a question of societal values and principles on both sides, its not merely a military policy.

 

[Rugger]

Is a rape child worth less than a child conceived intentionally?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I've not missed it and have emphasized that the current verbiage of "distress" is very ambiguous and as it stands is left to the discretion of whom? Abortionist medical practitioner? Anti-abortion medical practitioner? The distressed women? A board of review of abortion rights activists? A board of review of anti-abortion activists?

One case sets president. One president sets motions. One motion can rectify or amend. One amendment...and so on.

In this particular discussion, apparently that discretion is up to you. Is it not? I assume so, given the very binary judgment on abortion you are making herein.

I also comically enjoy the manner in which regret is being synonymously interchanged with mistake in this instance. Is it not being considered that at times a woman regrets the situation as a whole, but undergoes the abortion as a deliberate act? Abortions are not as happy-go-lucky as they are being made to seem.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

As far as the, "you've never been raped, so this is none of your business" argument, I think that's an attempt to circumvent a moral question that applies to society, not just the pregnant woman. Why do those who have never served care if there are gays in the military? Because it is a question of societal values and principles on both sides, its not merely a military policy.

Ah, Rob! What would a debate be without you deliberately misrepresenting my words, and painting me with making an argumentum ad populum (appeal to the base)?

You were painting it as a non-issue, and I was merely circumventing your ignorance and pointing out it may (possibly, you think?) be an issue for those who are affected.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Is a rape child worth less than a child conceived intentionally?

Ah, yes, more fallacies! Where did I say as such? Where did I imply worth anywhere within this discussion? I would enjoy your attempts to show me where I have.

Abortion is a reality, not a moral abstraction. I am sure women heading into an Abortion Clinic are more than interested in your philosophical permutations on the subject, Rugger. I am quite sure, just as they are contemplating the severity of their actions and the ramifications therein, their first thought is the philosophical implications of worth vs., non-worth! A pragmatist you are, sir.

 

[B5150]

In this particular discussion, apparently that discretion is up to you. Is it not? I assume so, given the very binary judgment abortion you are making herein.

I also comically enjoy the manner in which regret is being synonymously interchanged with mistake in this instance. Is it not being considered that at times a woman regrets the situation as a whole, but undergoes the abortion as a deliberate act? Abortions are not as happy-go-lucky as they are being made to seem.

I am not sure what you mean.

I am not passing judgment and have compassion and sympathy for cases that require such.

In either case it is, or is not, a human life, which also solicits compassion.

In either case it is taking a life, if it is indeed a human life, as I believe.

But again, my question is - what are the circumstances that subject a human life to abortion (death) and who determines the prerequisite?

You are using rape as one...what about divorce, infidelity, loss of a job (insufficient means), abuse...what is defined as distress and who decides?

 

[RobInKuwait]

Ah, Rob! What would a debate be without you deliberately misrepresenting my words, and painting me with making an argumentum ad populum (appeal to the base)?

You were painting it as a non-issue, and I was merely circumventing your ignorance and pointing out it may (possibly, you think?) be an issue for those who are affected.

I wouldn't consider it misrepresenting you words as much as twisting them (j/k) :icon_lol:.

How do you think I'm misrepresenting what you're saying? I was merely pointing out that this statement could very well apply to gays in the military as well as many other issues:

All three of you have experience as impregnated rape victims, correct? As I am quite sure none of you have, let us refrain, out of respect for those who do have experience in this particular field, from making objective statements on what is, and what is not an issue. Shall we?

On abortion, I see both sides of the issue and could honestly go either way, I don't care too much one way or the other. Less babies means less entitlements and therefore less of my money being taken out for taxes (in theory), so I guess abortions are good in that sense.

However, I see how they could be viewed as morally reprehensible as murder or infanticide, especially in late term abortions.

 

[Rugger]

Ah, yes, more fallacies! Where did I say as such? Where did I imply worth anywhere within this discussion? I would enjoy your attempts to show me where I have.

Abortion is a reality, not a moral abstraction. I am sure women heading into an Abortion Clinic are more than interested in your philosophical permutations on the subject, Rugger. I am quite sure, just as they are contemplating the severity of their actions and the ramifications therein, their first thought is the philosophical implications of worth vs., non-worth! A pragmatist you are, sir.

Were you not justifying abortion with the rape-case example? With that reasoning I do not view worth as moral abstraction but as reality, as you put it. If not, on what grounds is the rape case a reasonable argument?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm tired of you and your intellectual prowess making me feel stupid LOL

 

[Mulletsoldier]

As I am getting heated, let me apologize for any derisive sarcasm, and address the respectful comments in kind:

But again, my question is - what are the circumstances that subject a human life to abortion (death) and who determines the prerequisite?

You are using rape as one...what about divorce, infidelity, loss of a job (insufficient means), abuse...what is defined as distress and who decides?

Allow me to explain my comments: I interpret you to take an absolute position on abortion - that is, it always is, and always will be, murder. Now, despite the fact you claim to have sympathy and compassion for those affected - and, being that it is you, I wholeheartedly believe you - that is a judgment: You are making a discretionary stand that it is never justified. In such an instance, what rational appeal could I make to sway you from your position? I assume none.

In respects to prerequisite, you know as well as I do making objective qualifications will gloss over some instance or another - they always do. Such is why these decisions are discretionary; in the specific case of Post-Viability, the mother's health is the prerequisite condition, to be made by the attending physician, on whether or not the child is to be aborted. In respects to the other decisions, such opinions are necessarily formed individually, on an ad hoc basis. I cannot say I support every instance of abortion, but will say unequivocally I would refuse any measure which seeks to rebuke the woman's right to choose based on a certain percentage of uninformed decisions.

How do you think I'm misrepresenting what you're saying? I was merely pointing out that this statement could very well apply to gays in the military as well as many other issues:

You equated my statement to "this is none of your business", when such is not the case. I am in this case, and try to in others, merely inject some reality into abstracted situations - that is, we must always consider that real-live individuals are affected by actions made on emotional, intellectual, and moral bases (bay-SEES - I hate that spelling).

Were you not justifying abortion with the rape-case example? With that reasoning I do not view worth as moral abstraction but as reality, as you put it. If not, on what grounds is the rape case a reasonable argument?

Edit: Nevermind. I'm tired of you and your intellectual prowess making me feel stupid LOL

I was stating that in certain cases reality may infringe on moral imperatives, not that either baby is worth more or worth less. And, I agree, I am too tired for this ****.

 

[RobInKuwait]

You equated my statement to "this is none of your business", when such is not the case. I am in this case, and try to in others, merely inject some reality into abstracted situations - that is, we must always consider that real-live individuals are affected by actions made on emotional, intellectual, and moral bases (bay-SEES - I hate that spelling).

I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. I have heard many times in the past people say basically: "abortion has nothing to do with a man, so stay out of it" and I thought that is where you were going with what you said. My bad.

As far as what you were actually saying, I agree with you, it never hurts to hear from people directly affected by proposed legislation.

I think what makes the abortion question so divisive is that both sides have extremely compelling arguments, both of which tug at the heartstrings of people. I wish both sides would just find a reasonable compromise (early term abortions, with a waiting period) and let it rest. This is the largest wedge issue in America, and the fact that politicians keep adding fuel to the fire by bringing it up again doesn't help anybody.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I see. I misunderstood what you were saying. I have heard many times in the past people say basically: "abortion has nothing to do with a man, so stay out of it" and I thought that is where you were going with what you said. My bad.

As far as what you were actually saying, I agree with you, it never hurts to hear from people directly affected by proposed legislation.

I think what makes the abortion question so divisive is that both sides have extremely compelling arguments, both of which tug at the heartstrings of people.

Yes, that is all I meant. One need not be directly involved in a situation to form an opinion on it - I know I am sick at times, without having an M.D. I merely think it dangerous to abstract things without considering those who are actually affected by our decisions. Somebody had made a comment that rape-births are a 'non-issue'; I merely meant to say that it is in fact an issue to those that suffer through it.

 

[Rugger]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument from the pro-choice side beyond aborting a child when the mother's life is in danger. That's just my opinion, though :icon_lol:

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument from the pro-choice side beyond aborting a child when the mother's life is in danger. That's just my opinion, though :icon_lol:

What are the compelling arguments for the other side? To be compelled is to be subjectively swayed, based on the persuasive prowess of the speaker - that is, how well one subjectively justifies their epistemology. If you yourself were pro-choice, your opinion would be reversed, I am sure.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Yes, that is all I meant. One need not be directly involved in a situation to form an opinion on it - I know I am sick at times, without having an M.D. I merely think it dangerous to abstract things without considering those who are actually affected by our decisions. Somebody had made a comment that rape-births are a 'non-issue'; I merely meant to say that it is in fact an issue to those that suffer through it.

I understand why he said that. If he sees abortion as wrong, the circumstances don't matter, but as I said in the part above that I added: the abortion question needs to be resolved on some level through compromise. Zealots on both sides would disagree, but the issue has become akin to putting a finger in a bullet wound every time its brought up by either side.

 

[dsade]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument from the pro-choice side beyond aborting a child when the mother's life is in danger. That's just my opinion, though :icon_lol:

It's called "it's none of your business" until you can prove beyond sentimentality that there is an actual thinking being (not a potential identity, etc.) that is worth the cost of forcing a woman to carry to term and birth (risking life) an unwanted pregnancy.

Put it this way, at 2 days there is ZERO brain activity. No thought. Identity. No Dreams. nothing.

Now, before you bring in the unproven concept of "soul", which will never be anything but subjective belief, as argument you must prove it. Until then, disregard it in the case of argument.

Simply put, in spite of the potential of a group of cells to one day form a human being, for now (very early term) it is nothing of the sort and, as a parasite the host has a right to end the one-sided relationship for any reason she so chooses, while legisators and others do not have that right to force.

(messiest argument ever, but I have a 10 minute break I am taking before getting back to work.)

 

[RobInKuwait]

I have yet to hear a compelling argument from the pro-choice side beyond aborting a child when the mother's life is in danger. That's just my opinion, though :icon_lol:

Here's some compelling arguments:

1. If you outlaw abortion, maybe I'll just keep doing belly flops/starving myself/taking crack/use a coat hanger until the baby dies/miscarries. Like it or not, the mother has control of their own body.

2. Illegal abortions are implicitly more dangerous than legal ones. Prior to abortion being legalized, this was a serious problem.

3. Do you really want one more democrat voter? (sorry, that was wrong) :icon_lol:

If it was up to me, it should be decided at the state level. It would be legal in some states, and illegal in others. Everybody wins and everybody loses.

 

[Rugger]

It's called "it's none of your business" until you can prove beyond sentimentality that there is an actual thinking being (not a potential identity, etc.) that is worth the cost of forcing a woman to carry to term and birth (risking life) an unwanted pregnancy.

Put it this way, at 2 days there is ZERO brain activity. No thought. Identity. No Dreams. nothing.

Now, before you bring in the unproven concept of "soul", which will never be anything but subjective belief, as argument you must prove it. Until then, disregard it in the case of argument.

Simply put, in spite of the potential of a group of cells to one day form a human being, for now (very early term) it is nothing of the sort and, as a parasite the host has a right to end the one-sided relationship for any reason she so chooses, while legisators and others do not have that right to force.

(messiest argument ever, but I have a 10 minute break I am taking before getting back to work.)

Edit: MUST RESIST!

In closing, I'll just say that yes, it is my business; it is the business of all of us. The ending of a human life, whenever that life may begin, is our business.

 

[dsade]

Edit: MUST RESIST!

In closing, I'll just say that yes, it is my business; it is the business of all of us. The ending of a human life, whenever that life may begin, is our business.

Agreed....the problem we have is defining when that point in time is.

Are you one of those that believe that as soon as the sperm enters the egg it is now a human life, and therefore The Pill is murder?

If not, why not?

I am not disagreeing with that issue, just at what point. I think you will find a large majority of the pro-choice adherents to be of similar mindset.

 

[Rugger]

Agreed....the problem we have is defining when that point in time is.

Are you one of those that believe that as soon as the sperm enters the egg it is now a human life, and therefore The Pill is murder?

If not, why not?

I am not disagreeing with that issue, just at what point. I think you will find a large majority of the pro-choice adherents to be of similar mindset.

No, I am not, but I certainly see where they stand. Their reasoning, and it's true, is that once the sperm enters the egg there is a specific and individual DNA identity that is unlike any other, hence making it an individual. As I said earlier though, for me, once the heart beats, it's a human.

 

[dsade]

No, I am not, but I certainly see where they stand. Their reasoning, and it's true, is that once the sperm enters the egg there is a specific and individual DNA identity that unlike any other, hence making it an individual. As I said earlier, for me, once the heart beats, it's a human.

I understand your position...for ME it would be when there is distinct brainwave activity and reactions to stimulus (roughly), and I would resist (violently, if necessary) your attempts to legislate your definition (and of course, laws) into my and my wife's decisions.

Which is where the mess and over-defensiveness comes from.

 

[B5150]

Allow me to explain my comments: I interpret you to take an absolute position on abortion - that is, it always is, and always will be, murder. Now, despite the fact you claim to have sympathy and compassion for those affected - and, being that it is you, I wholeheartedly believe you - that is a judgment: You are making a discretionary stand that it is never justified. In such an instance, what rational appeal could I make to sway you from your position? I assume none.

I stand on my assertion that abortion is taking a life. Don't let the word murder, of course used to convey a more gruesome and or horrific atrocity or offense, suggest that I am emphatically against choice. Which I have never stated.

In respects to prerequisite, you know as well as I do making objective qualifications will gloss over some instance or another - they always do. Such is why these decisions are discretionary; in the specific case of Post-Viability, the mother's health is the prerequisite condition, to be made by the attending physician, on whether or not the child is to be aborted. In respects to the other decisions, such opinions are necessarily formed individually, on an ad hoc basis. I cannot say I support every instance of abortion, but will say unequivocally I would refuse any measure which seeks to rebuke the woman's right to choose based on a certain percentage of uninformed decisions.

I can assure you that if my wife's life were in the balance, and we were in agreement - or better yet let me rephrase that - if she desire not to lose her life to save the baby - I would without hesitation AND tremendous DISTRESS - allow the ending of the life of the unborn child - a living human being.

This would by no means would dismiss the FACT that I took it's innocent life - aka: killed it.

I am sympathetic and compassionate but I am HORRIFIED of the presidents that will be set by our immoral and unsympathetic, uncompassionate society - there is a decline in this "universal morality" that "intellectual" people tend to live by. It is a moving, shifting and rapidly declining standard.

 

[Rugger]

I understand your position...for ME it would be when there is distinct brainwave activity and reactions to stimulus (roughly), and I would resist (violently, if necessary) your attempts to legislate your definition (and of course, laws) into my and my wife's decisions.

Which is where the mess and over-defensiveness comes from.

I think that's where the differences lie. A lot of people believe that it isn't your or your wife's decision once the child reaches a certain level of development. They view the fetus (after a certain point, which differs as we said) the same as a toddler. They'll say you shouldn't be able to end a life (whatever their definition may be) of an unborn child simply because it resides in a womb; it is is a human life in their eyes. By their reasons you can't kill an unborn child because you don't want it just the same as you can't kill a newborn because you don't want it. It's basically the argument for the human right to life and when that creature becomes developed enough to have that inherent right.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I stand on my assertion that abortion is taking a life. Don't let the word murder, of course used to convey a more gruesome and or horrific atrocity or offense, suggest that I am emphatically against choice. Which I have never stated.I can assure you that if my wife's life were in the balance, and we were in agreement - or better yet let me rephrase that - if she desire not to lose her life to save the baby - I would without hesitation AND tremendous DISTRESS - allow the ending of the life of the unborn child - a living human being.

This would by no means would dismiss the FACT that I took it's innocent life - aka: killed it.

I am sympathetic and compassionate but I am HORRIFIED of the presidents that will be set by our immoral and unsympathetic, uncompassionate society - there is a decline in this "universal morality" that "intellectual" people tend to live by. It is a moving, shifting and rapidly declining standard.

I feel morality necessarily implies a lack of standard - that is, of complete subjectivity. Where our lines of subjectivity happen to interlace, we agree such things are negotiated morality - i.e., Society. To project your specific morality onto the actions of another is unprudent.

 

[dsade]

I think that's where the differences lie. A lot of people believe that it isn't your or your wife's decision once the child reaches a certain level of development. They view the fetus (after a certain point, which differs as we said) the same as a toddler. They'll say you shouldn't be able to end a life (whatever their definition may be) of an unborn child simply because it resides in a womb; it is is a human life in their eyes. By their reasons you can't kill an unborn child because you don't want it just the same as you can't kill a newborn because you don't want it. It's basically the argument for the human right to life and when that creature becomes developed enough to have that inherent right.

We don't disagree fundamentally, sir - but where we seem to disagree is at what point the fetus/blastula/cluster of cells/snowflake becomes recognizeably a true being.

Complete lack of nervous system (with NO corresponding brain activity) is a chunk of meat with potential - a machine progressing towards something, but that is NOT there.

You may state your disagreement/feelings that this is not the case, that the simply electromechanical action of a heartbeat (a muscle contraction) defines this, but again - hold that standard for yourself. The attempt to legislate your standard onto my behaviour BETTER be accompanied by stronger evidence than "I feel that.." else we have ourselves a genuine problem.

 

[Rugger]

We don't disagree fundamentally, sir - but where we seem to disagree is at what point the fetus/blastula/cluster of cells/snowflake becomes recognizeably a true being.

Complete lack of nervous system (with NO corresponding brain activity) is a chunk of meat with potential - a machine progressing towards something, but that is NOT there.

You may state your disagreement/feelings that this is not the case, that the simply electromechanical action of a heartbeat (a muscle contraction) defines this, but again - hold that standard for yourself. The attempt to legislate your standard onto my behaviour BETTER be accompanied by stronger evidence than "I feel that.." else we have ourselves a genuine problem.

Wouldn't it be more responsible to err on the side of caution?

 

[dsade]

Wouldn't it be more responsible to err on the side of caution?

Do you have any idea what the cost, in both energy and effort and hardship are? This is not a casual decision - and lives can be ruined or severely compromised.

Without a brain, there is no identity - and therefore no human being.

 

[Rugger]

Do you have any idea what the cost, in both energy and effort and hardship are? This is not a casual decision - and lives can be ruined or severely compromised.

Without a brain, there is no identity - and therefore no human being.

Seriously? Boo hoo. Yeah, I do know. My single mother raised me and my two siblings while working full time and going to school full time. I ate spaghetti and ramen growing up. She could have and almost did abort me, but she sucked it up and decided that she wasn't going to take me away just to make her life easier or less difficult.

 

[dsade]

Seriously? Boo hoo. Yeah, I do know. My single mother raised me and my two siblings while working full time and going to school full time. I ate spaghetti and ramen growing up. She could have and almost did abort me, but she sucked it up and decided that she wasn't going to take me away just to make her life easier or less difficult.

No need to take that attitude...without brain activity (or even a brain) there, for all intents, WAS no you.

And taking your train of thought further, I would expect your argument can easily be co-opted by those that DO wish to ban the pill as murder, since THEY believe life starts at conception.


Where does it end?

 

[Rugger]

No need to take that attitude...without brain activity (or even a brain) there, for all intents, WAS no you.

I simply disagree.

Where does it end?

It doesn't.

 

[dsade]

I simply disagree.



It doesn't.

And we come full circle.

But at least civil.

 

[Jayhawkk]

I simply do not consider it to be a child until there is brain activity. Even after there is brain activity I follow the same line of thinking as B5150. Wrong or right it's how I feel and would base my decisions of off.

 

[SokVichet]

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." -- Senator Barack Obama, speaking to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

Invalid Link Removed

You asked for it - you got it Toyota!

To illustrate the level of my own naivete, I TOTALLY thought there was gonna be discussion about BO's (I love the acronym his initials makes) promised first act of Presidency. In addition to the hypocrisy demonstrated by the demographics that overwhelmingly voted for him. Silly me

 

[flobot]

**** freedom of choice. A baby's not a damn choice, it's a gift. **** Obama!

Freedom to murder? **** that. A reknowned abortionist here in Canada recently got the Order of Canada (LIke a Canadian Congressional Medal of Honor)

WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE WORLD COMING TO? SERIOUSLY.

 

[Emerge]

Invalid Link Removed

Surprised nobody brought that up on either side.

 

[whiskers]

So are you for or against flobot?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

**** freedom of choice. A baby's not a damn choice, it's a gift. **** Obama!

Freedom to murder? **** that. A reknowned abortionist here in Canada recently got the Order of Canada (LIke a Canadian Congressional Medal of Honor)

WHAT IN THE HELL IS THE WORLD COMING TO? SERIOUSLY.

Well, at least this was a measured, well-considered and even-handed contribution to the discussion. I can unequivocally say my intellect has been bolstered due to your illuminative contribution to the discussion at hand. My regards, and appreciations.

Yours Truly,
Mulletsoldier