Mr. Bush, the truth shall set you free....

lnvanry · 03-07-2006, 12:23 PM

on a side: why is it if a pregnant women gets killed its a double homicide if she wants to keep the baby...If the mom stabs herself in the stomach (which happened last week in WV) its not a homicide?

How about this for consistency?

BigDyl · 03-07-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

I hear this repeated time and time again, along with the "I guess I'm killing life everytime I scrape dead skin off in the shower.." Unfortunantly for your side, it's completely baseless, and completely inapplicable to the situation.

A man is not killing a baby when he ejaculates. His sperm, if left alone, will not grow into anything, unlike a child in the womb. An unborn baby is not a random grouping of cells. It is human life. It is human. Their is no question that it is a human life, if you believe otherwise I will challenge you to tell me what species a "fetus" (helps to dehumanize it, this way it is easier to murder it) is. We were all that "blob of tissue." Life is a continuing process from conception until death.

What gives you the right to choose who doesn't get the most fundamental right of all, the right to life? Because it doesn't have all of our full-grown characteristics? Because it might not "feel it" or "know it?" Perhaps the government should give less protection to physically and mentally handicapped people since they have less of our common characteristics, thus their life isn't worth as much. Perhaps anyone who is knocked unconscious can be killed, because they won't know what happened.

I'm 100% pro-choice. A woman has the right to choose if she has sex or not, and she has the right to choose to use birth control or not (as does the man). The government will not tell her what she can do with her own body, unless it harms others. I'm afraid killing a completely innocent baby, that she imposed upon herself, is not a personal liberty granted by the Constitution. If you disagree, please find the "Right to murder your unborn child," because I just can't seem to find it. Interestingly, I see we are granted the right to life.

The religious argument is stupid. You think there are no religious people who are pro-choice? No atheists who are pro-life? It carries no relevance in the discussion whatsoever. I've seen plenty of the pro-choice atheists just as, if not more, zealous in their pursuit of legalized murder. People call pro-lifers zealots for defending the defenseless and call them zealots for valuing life. If you believe an unborn child is a life worth protecting, how could you not be passionate when over a million innocent children are murdered each year out of conveinence?

There is a difference between cell's and something that is developed enough to have working neurons firing neurotransmitters into synapses.

brogers · 03-07-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDyl

There is a difference between cell's and something that is developed enough to have working neurons firing neurotransmitters into synapses.

So is a mentally retarded person's life less valuable? Since their brain is less functional? Where do you stop?

We were all blobs of tissue, I'm sure glad my parents didn't abort me while I was a "blob of tissue" if my life is worth protecting now, why isn't when I can't even defend myself?

BigDyl · 03-07-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

So is a mentally retarded person's life less valuable? Since their brain is less functional? Where do you stop?

We were all blobs of tissue, I'm sure glad my parents didn't abort me while I was a "blob of tissue" if my life is worth protecting now, why isn't when I can't even defend myself?

No, mentally retarded people are still a living, and functioning human being with working neurons (or else they would be a vegetable)

brogers · 03-07-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigDyl

No, mentally retarded people are still a living, and functioning human being with working neurons (or else they would be a vegetable)

They are less functional, so their life worth less according to your logic. Someone who gets brain damaged in an accident or has a stroke is worth less than a normal person.

If my life is worth protecting now, it is worth protecting when I was just a "mass of tissue."

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

They are less functional, so their life worth less according to your logic. Someone who gets brain damaged in an accident or has a stroke is worth less than a normal person.

If my life is worth protecting now, it is worth protecting when I was just a "mass of tissue."

You are on a sinking boat and there is only room for one more person in the life raft. There is you and there is someone who essentially is in Terry Schiavo's terminal condition. Are you going to say that a coin should be flipped to see who goes or are you going to kick her ass over the side of the boat?

brogers · 03-07-2006, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

You are on a sinking boat and there is only room for one more person in the life raft. There is you and there is someone who essentially is in Terry Schiavo's terminal condition. Are you going to say that a coin should be flipped to see who goes or are you going to kick her ass over the side of the boat?

1) We aren't a sinking ship, this would be compareable to if the mother's life was at serious risk.

2) If you knew Terry Schiavo would recover and regain consciousness and function as a normal person, could you kill her out of conveinence? Not to mention, we're talking about a child, whom the mother imposed upon herself (with help from a man).

I don't believe it's a very good analogy, to be honest.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

1) We aren't a sinking ship, this would be compareable to if the mother's life was at serious risk.

2) If you knew Terry Schiavo would recover and regain consciousness and function as a normal person, could you kill her out of conveinence? Not to mention, we're talking about a child, whom the mother imposed upon herself (with help from a man).

I don't believe it's a very good analogy, to be honest.

Your right, because a fetus cannot regain consciousness since it never had it.

Anyway, if all life is of the same value as you say, you should be able to answer this question.

brogers · 03-07-2006, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Your right, because a fetus cannot regain consciousness since it never had it.

Anyway, if all life is of the same value as you say, you should be able to answer this question.

The point is it will become "conscious" (as if that is a qualifier for the right to life..).

Your question is an extreme circumstance, and honestly isn't worth answering, since it doesn't apply to the situation.

However, if there is a healthy person, with a long life in front of them, and a terminally ill person who is brain dead, of course the healthy person should live. But this "one or the other" cirumstance isn't the case for 99% of pregnancies. Additionally, does an unborn baby not have a long life in front of them, just as a healthy person? We were all unborn babies at one point, and depriving me of life at 2 weeks after conception is just as bad as depriving me a of life now. If the qualifier for allowing murder is that "They won't know it" then we can kill alot of people, or just drug them and kill them. Do you see the fallacy of that?

section8 · 03-07-2006, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

You are on a sinking boat and there is only room for one more person in the life raft. There is you and there is someone who essentially is in Terry Schiavo's terminal condition. Are you going to say that a coin should be flipped to see who goes or are you going to kick her ass over the side of the boat?

No, you kick her ass off the boat, but doesn't this fit more along the line of Survival of the Fittest?

Decker · 03-07-2006, 01:21 PM

Debating phenomenal life is interesting but I'd stick to my assertion that the fetus/embryo has no rights over and above the mother. W/out the mother, the fetus dies. W/out the fetus the mother can live. The necessity of the mother in this equation gives rise to her superior rights in deciding the fate of the fetus. The mother as vessel has superior rights to the fetus/cargo. In other words, I don't care when or how one philosophizes about the 'beginning of life.' But it's interesting nonetheless.

BigDyl · 03-07-2006, 01:25 PM

True Story, but from a scientific standpoint, your not living if you are not conciously aware, and this requires some brain activity. I'd throw broger off the boat.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

However, if there is a healthy person, with a long life in front of them, and a terminally ill person who is brain dead, of course the healthy person should live.

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

What gives you the right to choose who doesn't get the most fundamental right of all, the right to life?

.

**Prince** · 03-07-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

You, the Supreme Court and my wife all believe that a fetus is not a person. I believe that too. Is abortion just another medical procedure? That's debatable but it's nice to know which side of the fence you fall on.

I am pro-choice, it is the mother's decision to keep her baby, period.

There is no argument that will change my mind, I have a minor in philosophy and have heard/discussed them all in Ethics classes.

Pepper · 03-07-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by section8

I tend to moderate in my political views, even leaning towards being conservative more times than not. Abortion is one of the things that I disagree with conservatives with. In the case of rape, incest and/or harm to the mother, I have no problem with abortion. Busy could make a valid argument that you can give the child up for adoption, but on the other hand Rob makes a good argument about the foster homes being flooded with children. If my wife had been rapped, I would not want the child, or if it were going to put her in danger, I would have no problem with abortion. Now if a 17 or 18 year old girl gets pregnant by her b/f, random encounter at a party or whatever, then to have an abortion just b/c she decides that it will be a mistake or to use it as a form of birth control as it is often abused as, then I don't agree. I am not saying that it is not the woman’s choice but to use it as mentioned above, I do not agree.

Logically, I want to except rape/incest and allow abortion. However, if life begins at conception, if it is murder to kill a fetus, then it is so regardless of how the pregnancy happened.

This is just a tough issue. I wish I could oversimply like Robert and kbm do religion, but I can't.

Just thinking about abortion and some of the possiblities gets me emotional. Regardless of whether I say I am pro-choice or pro-life I am just going to feel bad b/c there is no easy answer. So, I just have to go with being on the side of life.

I guess that makes me a member of the Americal Taliban.

Robert, you and kbm are almost unreadable wihen you start spewing your anti-religion crap. Sorry.

brogers · 03-07-2006, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

.

The situation you gave me was a "ONE OR THE OTHER"

A ridiculously rare situation, not even worth mentioning, and I knew you'd want to jump all over it, but it is practically speaking, irrelevent.

All life is worth protecting, because it isn't a "ONE OR THE OTHER" situation, the mother is not going to die because of her child. Abortion is a matter of conveinence, irresponsibility, and unaccountability.

Decker · 03-07-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert DiMaggio

I am pro-choice, it is the mother's decision to keep her baby, period.

There is no argument that will change my mind, I have a minor in philosophy and have heard/discussed them all in Ethics classes.

I believe that the Mother's rights are superior to that of the fetus/embryo. It's her body/her decision.

But Robert, I'm preaching to the choir.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepper

This is just a tough issue. I wish I could oversimply like Robert and kbm do religion, but I can't.

Just look at it in the same manner as the church looks at homosexuality, I think they are pretty simple with that.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

The situation you gave me was a "ONE OR THE OTHER"

Either all life is equal or all life is not. It isn't equal in instances that you believe and not so in instances where you disagree.

BigDyl · 03-07-2006, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Either all life is equal or all life is not. It isn't equal in instances that you believe and not so in instances where you disagree.

Just like BigDyl > Dale Mabry.

brogers · 03-07-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

Either all life is equal or all life is not. It isn't equal in instances that you believe and not so in instances where you disagree.

All human life is worth protecting. My statements were to show the fallacy of his reasoning, ie "it lacks some human characteristics, thus it doesn't deserve any protection."

Your extreme circumstances do not apply to the discussion at hand, as they are just that, extreme. It does not reflect on the vast, vast majority of abortions, whatsoever, in any fashion.

DOMS · 03-07-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

The point is it will become "conscious" (as if that is a qualifier for the right to life..).

Don't bother brogers. The whole "consciousness" issue is just another way for pro-abortionists to dehumanize a fetus. They're always looking for some other, more benign way, of saying, "I'm going to kill this human because it's not convenient for me to be a parent."

What I find most perplexing is that many pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Yeah, let's kill the innocent but spare the murderers.

brogers · 03-07-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DOMS

Don't bother brogers. The whole "consciousness" issue is just another way for pro-abortionists to dehumanize a fetus. They're always looking for some other, more benign way, of saying, "I'm going to kill this human because it's not convenient for me to be a parent."

What I find most perplexing is that many pro-abortionists are anti-death penalty. Yeah, let's kill the innocent but spare the murderers.

ACLU: Crusading for death row innmates' right to a painless execution, but supporting drowning babies in saline. Yeah!

Abortion is the thing I hate the most about this world.

**Dale Mabry** · 03-07-2006, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brogers

ACLU: Crusading for death row innmates' right to a painless execution, but supporting drowning babies in saline. Yeah!

It is painless as well.

I don't believe in painless executions though. A slow painful death would be much better for a criminal who is 100% guilty. The only issue is the fucked up legal system where they are now overturning erroneous cases thru DNA evidence.

Btw, I don't believe in abortion as a method of birth control, but I am not a woman and should have no say with what they do with their body.

If it were up to me, it would be fine in cases of rape or foreseen health risk to the mother, period. I'm not a woman, though, so I should have no say. Topolo, on the other hand, should feel free to speak up.

TJ Cline · 03-07-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

03-07-2006, 12:23 PM	#61
lnvanry primeau Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: DC Posts: 2,976 Photos: 12	on a side: why is it if a pregnant women gets killed its a double homicide if she wants to keep the baby...If the mom stabs herself in the stomach (which happened last week in WV) its not a homicide? How about this for consistency?

03-07-2006, 01:21 PM	#71
Decker % Elite Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Milwaukee Posts: 2,051	Debating phenomenal life is interesting but I'd stick to my assertion that the fetus/embryo has no rights over and above the mother. W/out the mother, the fetus dies. W/out the fetus the mother can live. The necessity of the mother in this equation gives rise to her superior rights in deciding the fate of the fetus. The mother as vessel has superior rights to the fetus/cargo. In other words, I don't care when or how one philosophizes about the 'beginning of life.' But it's interesting nonetheless.

03-07-2006, 02:10 PM	#85
TJ Cline Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,544	Quote: