ABORTION VERSION TWO Options

[creole]

I'm going to make this short. I'm pro-choice. If a woman wants to have an abortion, so be it. I'd rather hear about a woman being happy w/ an abortion than having the child & being unhappy. There are enough unwanted children in the world already, why bring in another one? The world is overpopulated as it is.
Abortions happen, accept it and live your own damn life.

Or they can just put it up for adoption.

[huskar]

It is the choice of the woman who bears the child . The rest of us have no right to butt into her choice . It grows in her taking her resources , it is her responsibility to devote a significant amount of her life into the child which she might not be prepared at the time . It is her decision to make and we can only advice her but the CHOICE is hers .

[only-tuesdays]

Don't you think the father should be able to have some input as well? It's his child too.

[dosomethin888]

Don't you think the father should be able to have some input as well? It's his child too.

Ya, but in the majority of the girls Ive talked to, past friends/acquientances, the men they got pregnant from are man-sluts that dont want a child. They are happy sleeping around and not caring about the consequences. But with the rest of the men, the men that actually care, yes I definetely think they should have some input because it is their baby too.

[Comptine]

Ya, but in the majority of the girls Ive talked to, past friends/acquientances, the men they got pregnant from are man-sluts that dont want a child. They are happy sleeping around and not caring about the consequences. But with the rest of the men, the men that actually care, yes I definetely think they should have some input because it is their baby too.

Because you know EVERYONE in this nation.

I think it's funny how a ban on abortion would, by law, force women to be mothers even if they don't want to yet there has been NO talk about a measure to ensure that the father gets the same treatment.

Without the sperm, there would be no fertilization. So shouldn't the father be forced, by law, to take the same responsibility as the mother if abortions are banned?

If the father can get off (literally) without any consequences, the mother should be able to.

I think if someone wants to butt into someone else's life they never met and never will... they better make sure their own life is pristine. You got your own problems. Fix them first before trying to control someone else's.

[Tomates]

Im pro-Choice.
I mean what if its a young teenage girl who got raped and ended up being pregnant? You would definatly not want to keep the child because it wouldnt be right, i mean it was forced.

[dosomethin888]

Because you know EVERYONE in this nation.

I think it's funny how a ban on abortion would, by law, force women to be mothers even if they don't want to yet there has been NO talk about a measure to ensure that the father gets the same treatment.

Without the sperm, there would be no fertilization. So shouldn't the father be forced, by law, to take the same responsibility as the mother if abortions are banned?

If the father can get off (literally) without any consequences, the mother should be able to.

I think if someone wants to butt into someone else's life they never met and never will... they better make sure their own life is pristine. You got your own problems. Fix them first before trying to control someone else's.

In most cases, the father is forced to pay child support, so he is taking some responsibility. Ya, maybe they should order that the father take care of the child on weekends. The mother on weekdays. That would make it a little easier if the mother would have otherwise been a single parent. But its going to be hard on both of them because they both willingly had sex and made a child.

And I never said my life is pristine. What are you talking about?? Im not trying to control someone else's life, Im trying to save an innocent child's life.

[coconutter]

In most cases, the father is forced to pay child support, so he is taking some responsibility. Ya, maybe they should order that the father take care of the child on weekends. The mother on weekdays. That would make it a little easier if the mother would have otherwise been a single parent. But its going to be hard on both of them because they both willingly had sex and made a child.

And I never said my life is pristine. What are you talking about?? Im not trying to control someone else's life, Im trying to save an innocent child's life.

There's a huge flaw in that plan. Most of the time, when a woman wants to get an abortion, she probably isn't in a stable relationship. That's not true all the time, but it's the case a lot. So how is she going to force the biological father to help take cake of a baby she didn't want, and I doubt he would want to have anything to with the baby either (he could've moved to another state, and the only way he would HAVE to is if supreme court made him, and a single mother could not pay for that).

Not only that, but babies cost a lot more money than child support can offer. If a woman had big plans to go to a really nice college, let's say, 30,000 a year; Their plans would be shattered. Depending on the home environment, babies cost more than that a semester. Sure, you could argue "well they took a chance and had sex either unprotected or protected". Although very †rue, the president makes decisions that are life and death for other people, and when they're made, we don't make those decisions illegal, do we? No, we don't. Pregnancies happen, sometimes it's unavoidable, and for that reason all women should be given the chance to abort her baby. What's the point in bringing an unwanted child into this world? We have too many unwanted children already, why is it such a huge deal to avoid the pain the child will suffer through life, knowing their father doesn't want them, or that they're in a family that doesn't approve of their birth?

We can't outlaw something because of religious beliefs. That's not an equal nation. We can't favour other religions just because it's the majority. That's not what this place stands for. If that were true, integration would have never happened.

[Comptine]

In most cases, the father is forced to pay child support, so he is taking some responsibility. Ya, maybe they should order that the father take care of the child on weekends. The mother on weekdays. That would make it a little easier if the mother would have otherwise been a single parent. But its going to be hard on both of them because they both willingly had sex and made a child.

And I never said my life is pristine. What are you talking about?? Im not trying to control someone else's life, Im trying to save an innocent child's life.

Maybe the child doesn't want to be saved? Huh? And by trying to eliminate the choice you muddle in the mother's life. Pregnancy definitely effects her.

That plan is stupidly unfair. A woman has to carry the child for 9 months. She has to give birth. She puts soo much for blood, sweat, and tears into a pregnancy than a man would. In an unwanted pregnancy, it's so much more. Like coconutter pointed out, child support is way to low for the cost of a child. Child support can be as low as a couple a hundred a month. That does not meet anything a parent needs at all for her and her baby.

And why does the mom have to devote most of her time while a dad only has to devote 2 days? How is she suppose to work? Finish school?

Since they both equally decided to have sex, they should equally bear the burden. None of this sexist bullshit about how it's the woman's fault for having sex. If the guy had kept it in his pants, she wouldn't be in that position.

[coconutter]

Since they both equally decided to have sex, they should equally bear the burden. None of this sexist bullshit about how it's the woman's fault for having sex. If the guy had kept it in his pants, she wouldn't be in that position.

Exactly! People blame it way too quickly on women because of multiple reasons. It's socially acceptable for guys not to keep their pants on, and partly because the woman bears the child. However, genetically their child is equal, and all situations involving science should include scientific facts. Even abortion.

Why aren't they making a big deal out of putting down animals in shelters? That's more relevant than actual murder than simply taking an unborn child out of their womb. Is it because their humans? Is that it. No lifeforms can be "better" or "more favourable" than another, so why don't all the anti-choice people take this issue and shove it up their ass until they eliminate all forms of murder. Then we'll talk.

[Peanups]

Abortion boils down to this one point on "what is the unborn?"

Is the unborn human or not?

It doesn't matter what the women "feels" in deciding. Is it right to kill a toddler if it is unwanted? This is where it begs the question of again, WHAT IS THE UNBORN?!

So the true question is what is a child before it is birthed? Is it human or not.

Rabbit-trails cause long threads like this.


And, yes, I know that this was more of a statement than a stance on the debate.

[NoSex]

conservatives think that having a baby is punishment for promiscuous women.

[brooklyneast05]

Abortion boils down to this one point on "what is the unborn?"

Is the unborn human or not?

It doesn't matter what the women "feels" in deciding. Is it right to kill a toddler if it is unwanted? This is where it begs the question of again, WHAT IS THE UNBORN?!

So the true question is what is a child before it is birthed? Is it human or not.

Rabbit-trails cause long threads like this.
And, yes, I know that this was more of a statement than a stance on the debate.

what does talking about killing toddlers have to do with deciding what the unborn is? is a toddler unborn? no, so how does a toddler situation "beg the question" of what the unborn is? it doesn't beg any questions about unborn definitions.


if you ask me i think what a woman "feels" is pretty damn important when it's in regards to something in her own body. what i don't think is important is what someone else who isn't in her situation, doesn't know her, and doesn't have something growing in them, and doesn't have to raise the kid for the next 18 years, "feels" about the decision.

[fixtatik]

I don't side with pro-life or pro-choice. I'll only choose when there's consistency. Ask any scientist, he/she will tell you that a living organism contains cells, can metabolize, is capable of reproducing, and a few other factors. They'll all give you a text-book answer.

The thing is, abortion legality is decided by Supreme Court justices (the people we don't elect, but the president appoints), not by scientists. And even more curiously, it's a federal crime to destroy an unborn fetus if it's not specifically under the pretext of "abortion."

Herein lies a few problems:
- Biology defines a fetus as a living organism (the cells reproduce).
- If the courts define a fetus as non-living because it can't reproduce in the sense of having intercourse and creating more of itself, then a child is also non-living. And if that's the case, it should also be legal to "abort" a child until their reproductive organs develop enough to bear children.
- Since 1973, it's been the mother's decision to abort the fetus until birth (which could be a full nine months they have to make that choice). And it's been decided under the assumption that privacy and equality rights were being violated if these women weren't allowed to terminate the pregnancy. So why is it, that if a baby is born 4 months early and put on a respirator, it's a federal crime to kill that baby? It obviously can't survive on its own. It still needs a host: the machine. See 2 bullet points up: biology defines life at the time of conception. It's only the government that defines it at the time of birth, the same government that everyone complains about making poor decisions.

So, until a woman can stick a fork through her child's brain and kill it (until that child can reproduce), I don't believe it should be legal.

[NoSex]

So, until a woman can stick a fork through her child's brain and kill it (until that child can reproduce), I don't believe it should be legal.

you do realize the court decision has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of a living thing? i mean, what's the point of discussing that @ all in comparison to roe v. wade? secondly, lot's a things are living, but we don't care if we kill them. a better question than "is a fetus living," is: "is the fetus a living person?" & when i say person, i mean it in a philosophical manner, i.e. personhood.

[Peanups]

what does talking about killing toddlers have to do with deciding what the unborn is? is a toddler unborn? no, so how does a toddler situation "beg the question" of what the unborn is? it doesn't beg any questions about unborn definitions.


if you ask me i think what a woman "feels" is pretty damn important when it's in regards to something in her own body. what i don't think is important is what someone else who isn't in her situation, doesn't know her, and doesn't have something growing in them, and doesn't have to raise the kid for the next 18 years, "feels" about the decision.

It's the difference between a born child and an unborn child.

And I am not stating that what a women feels is unimportant, the question is is if it is right for a women to kill her child? What is the difference between a child in the womb and a child already born (like a toddler)?

Well first off, the law of biogenesis states that everything produces after itself. A dog produces a dog, a cat produces a cat. A human, produces a human. So what qualifies an unborn baby to be inhuman?

Is it the size? Do short people qualify as less of a person? I don't think we'd say any one that is 4'11" is less than a person who is 6'2". Same with a toddler to a child.

Perhaps level of development? Some people claim the baby "doesn't feel anything" because it isn't developed enough. There are children, and adults with diseases to where they can feel no pain, does that mean they are inhuman? Maybe you could argue it can't even think. What about those mentally disabled? Are they less of people than someone who isn't mentally inhibited?

Perhaps the environment? Baby's aren't technically in the world, and don't breathe air. Why does it matter if they breath air or not yet? Does their level of respiration matter and define them as a human? Also, are you less human if you are in Canada or somewhere else? You are still a human, no matter your location.

Perhaps dependency? Babies are dependent on their mothers, but does that make them not a human? What if a toddler was thrown in the pool, and you were the only one around to save the baby from drowning. Is the toddler no longer human because it is dependent on you saving its life? Maybe that is too far reaching, but what about people dependent on insulin, or medications ? Are they inhuman?

The question is what is the baby? Is it human or not? If it is a human, it has inalienable rights correct? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life especially important. If babies are humans, where do we draw the line to when murder is okay and when it is not? As seen, it's size doesn't matter, it's environment doesn't matter, it's level of development doesn't matter, and neither does it's dependency. It is as qualified just as a toddler is qualified of being a human.

Murder based on how one feels is dangerous ground. It opens the door to endless possibilities that can be shrugged off as "emotionally" based in terms of taking a life. Anyways, parents can always give up the child for adoption, they don't have to "keep" the child.

I believe a woman, along with a man's feelings are VERY important. But if a baby is a human, our laws protect humans from MURDER. If it's okay to murder them, then it should be okay to murder in general. It's a double standard if you ask me.

I'm sorry, I know this is a bit drawn out, but fixtatik pretty much hit it on the nail.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Maybe you could argue it can't even think. What about those mentally disabled? Are they less of people than someone who isn't mentally inhibited?

Are you saying retarded people can't think?

Those in a vegetative state can't. If I was brain dead, I would want to be killed.

[fixtatik]

Are you saying retarded people can't think?

Those in a vegetative state can't. If I was brain dead, I would want to be killed.

Simply because our current level of technology can't pick up brain activity in a VS doesn't mean that it's non-existent. 200 years ago, there wasn't any technology to pick up anything. Why do we always assume that our current state is at its most advanced? Terri Schiavo never told anyone, "Hey, that hurts." It doesn't mean that she wasn't screaming it at a sub-conscious level that our machines can't read. Or Rom Houben, who was assumed to have been in a coma for 23 years, when in fact he was entirely conscious, just paralyzed, which our machines couldn't read.

@ NoSex: are you really going to start in on your bullshit again? Did you even read my post? Did you not see my mention of 5-month old births? How does being born 4 months prematurely and unable to survive on its own qualify as being a person? Roe v. Wade gave women the ability to abort a fetus up to 9 months. There are hoops you have to go through after around 24 weeks, but it's still legal to abort a 9-month-old fetus if it hasn't yet been born. Yet, because that 5-month-old fetus came out of the womb, it's now illegal to kill it.

[brooklyneast05]

What is the difference between a child in the womb and a child already born (like a toddler)?

to be honest i don't even get people who don't think there is an obvious difference. it's hard for me to comprehend that someone would think a toddler and a lump of cells are on the same playing field in any regard.

to me personally the fact that one has been born and one hasn't is enough, but i'm just a cruel heartless individual like that.

Well first off, the law of biogenesis states that everything produces after itself. A dog produces a dog, a cat produces a cat. A human, produces a human. So what qualifies an unborn baby to be inhuman?

no one is claiming that it is "inhuman" in that sense that definition is talking about. nobody is arguing it's "inhuman" in the sense that it is literally something else (like a spider, or a dog, or a jelly fish, or a elephant).

Is it the size? Do short people qualify as less of a person? I don't think we'd say any one that is 4'11" is less than a person who is 6'2". Same with a toddler to a child.

exaggeration much? is a fetus simply a "short person". how many people do you know that are and inch tall? 4 inches? even 14?

and what a terrible analogy talking about a 4'11 person and a 6'4 person. neither of these are remotely close to a fetus, they've both been BIRTHED, for one. and of course we can think of about a million other ways that a 6'4 grown man is different than a fetus.

Perhaps level of development? Some people claim the baby "doesn't feel anything" because it isn't developed enough. There are children, and adults with diseases to where they can feel no pain, does that mean they are inhuman? Maybe you could argue it can't even think. What about those mentally disabled? Are they less of people than someone who isn't mentally inhibited?

yeah you're right, some people do claim that, and rightly so because it makes no sense to say that something with an unconnected nervous system and no consciousness feels pain.

once again do you wanna know the difference between a mentally disabled person and a undeveloped fetus? one is born, and one isn't. as for those who can't feel pain...they have also been born. (and just like the 6'4 man, there are a ton of other things that set these people apart as people)

Perhaps the environment? Baby's aren't technically in the world, and don't breathe air. Why does it matter if they breath air or not yet? Does their level of respiration matter and define them as a human? Also, are you less human if you are in Canada or somewhere else? You are still a human, no matter your location.

why does it matter if they breathe air? well since in the real world to be a human, you have to breathe air, i would think that breathing air is a pretty important thing. air is absolutely essential to human life and survival. so i don't know why we'd brush something like breathing off as not all that important anyway!

and as far as the second part...ummmm what? living in and being completely dependent on the body of the mother is nothing like being in canada. this argument is by far the dumbest in the entire post and maybe the entire thread. it doesn't even make any sense. we are not talking about location being important in a geographic sense, we're talking about living in someone's body.

Perhaps dependency? Babies are dependent on their mothers, but does that make them not a human? What if a toddler was thrown in the pool, and you were the only one around to save the baby from drowning. Is the toddler no longer human because it is dependent on you saving its life? Maybe that is too far reaching, but what about people dependent on insulin, or medications ? Are they inhuman?

a fetus is dependent on it's mother for every single thing. that's it's natural state. you don't have to throw this thing into peril for this to be the case. a toddler sitting there is not dependent on it's mother in the sense that a fetus is. notice that you first have to throw the toddler into some unnatural situation before you can call it dependent. dependence in the form of childcare and dependence in the form of literally not being able to survive in the absence of the mother for 5 minutes are not the same forms of dependence.

yes that is reaching way too far, but then again so was likening a fetus in the womb to being in canada, and taking the time out to point out that humans produce human fetuses as opposed to dog fetuses.

people who take insulin have been born, so that's a pretty big difference in itself.

The question is what is the baby? Is it human or not? If it is a human, it has inalienable rights correct? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Life especially important. If babies are humans, where do we draw the line to when murder is okay and when it is not? As seen, it's size doesn't matter, it's environment doesn't matter, it's level of development doesn't matter, and neither does it's dependency. It is as qualified just as a toddler is qualified of being a human.

all of those things seem to matter in my opinion when you take out your giant exaggerations. like saying an inch long fetus is equal to a 4'11 born human. or saying that being in the womb is basically like being in Canada or any other location in the world. or saying that a fetus is the same thing as a fully born developed mentally disabled person. or saying that the fact that a fetus can't survive outside it's mother is the same thing as the fact that if you threw a baby into a pool (or fire, or under a car, or anywhere else obviously perilous) it would be dependent on someone to save it.

Murder based on how one feels is dangerous ground. It opens the door to endless possibilities that can be shrugged off as "emotionally" based in terms of taking a life. Anyways, parents can always give up the child for adoption, they don't have to "keep" the child.

oh yeah murder based on how one feels is dangerous huh? as opposed to that one kind of murder that isn't dangerous? i guess your saying that if a mother is allowed to abort a fetus then she might as well be able to go out and shoot a family of four in the head because she feels like it right? completely ignoring that these people aren't dependent on her, don't live in her, and oh yeah ARE BORN. ( as well, once again, of a long list of other attributes that separates them from a fetus.)

I believe a woman, along with a man's feelings are VERY important. But if a baby is a human, our laws protect humans from MURDER. If it's okay to murder them, then it should be okay to murder in general. It's a double standard if you ask me.

so i'm guessing you don't agree with the throwing away of any eggs used for vitro fertilization either? those people who throw away those fertilized eggs need to be in prison right now if you ask me. they are murders, a complete violent threat to society for sure. when they threw those eggs away...they might as well have been shoving a toddler into the trash can and suffocating it as it was kicking and screaming.



there's more to go into and this could be way more extensive than i felt like ( we can get into that i guess, since cb sucks so this is better than every other thread on here unfortunately). however let's not be mistaken that the vast majority of abortions are NOT at 9 months or even remotely close, the first trimester.

[brooklyneast05]

Are you saying retarded people can't think?

Those in a vegetative state can't. If I was brain dead, I would want to be killed.

lmaoooo yeah basically that seems to be what she said.


i'm with you. i want to be MURDERED if i'm brain dead. i don't honestly think i'll care that much

[fixtatik]

however let's not be mistaken that the vast majority of abortions are NOT at 9 months or even remotely close, the first trimester.

You can't ignore the fact, though, that it is legal to abort a fetus at nine months, and it does happen. If you do ignore it, it's like saying the majority of murders don't involve the victim getting chopped to pieces, and therefore it's not wrong.

[NoSex]

@ NoSex: are you really going to start in on your bullshit again?

it'll try to respond to some important points:

1. you say that "biology defines life at the time of conception." actually, biologically, life begins before conception. sperm & eggs, the male & female reproductive cells, are living. of course, you're not going to to charge someone for manslaughter because they menstruated? or murder because they rubbed a few out?
2. you seem to think that somewhere, somehow, a court decided that fetuses are non-living. insofar as i understand, no court has ever made such a decision. the decision to legalize abortion (i.e. roe v. wade) had absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the fetus was living (or even human.)
3. you completely contradict yourself here:

Since 1973, it's been the mother's decision to abort the fetus until birth... So why is it, that if a baby is born 4 months early and put on a respirator, it's a federal crime to kill that baby?

first you say that roe v. wade only permits the mother to abort "until birth", then you ask why she cannot abort the baby after birth. well, because that's the law. the court decided on no abortions after birth. :)

i think the most important thing that you are neglecting is the fact that the courts are not denying that the fetus is alive, or that it is even human. these questions are not of immediate concern in their decision, what they are focusing on is the right of the woman to her privacy & the control of her body. that is the problem they are trying to solve. it is about the function of government, its powers, & its responsibility to the people. in the case of the woman's right to choose, it has everything to do with that & nothing more. it is simply outside of government control, i.e. it would be unconstitutional for the united states government to ban abortion. however, once the child is born, obviously, this is no longer about the privacy or rights of the woman. the child is separated from its mother & society has decided that @ this separation, government has a certain responsibility to the protection of that child. that may seem arbitrary, but it is a line that must be drawn nonetheless.

what you are asking, is that the line be drawn earlier, but why not draw it even earlier still (i.e. the sperm & egg)? there is no perfect time to say that a living thing has the right to life, but there are pragmatic & utilitarian times to make that decision --- & that is the job of government. the job of government is NOT to legislate & enforce morality.

You can't ignore the fact, though, that it is legal to abort a fetus at nine months, and it does happen. If you do ignore it, it's like saying the majority of murders don't involve the victim getting chopped to pieces, and therefore it's not wrong.

although this is true, it is not uniformly true; as of 2007, 36 states had bans on late-term abortions. this is because the strict ruling of roe v. wade did not consider abortion after viability (defined as about seven months, where a child may survive without artificial support).

[mipadi]

You can't ignore the fact, though, that it is legal to abort a fetus at nine months, and it does happen. If you do ignore it, it's like saying the majority of murders don't involve the victim getting chopped to pieces, and therefore it's not wrong.

Depends on the state. 36 states ban late-term abortions, and 13 states ban abortions after 24 weeks. JC is right, though, that those are rare: only 1.4% of US abortions occur after 21 weeks, and about 0.08% occur after 24 weeks. [1]

[Peanups]

It seems like there are way to many "misconceptions" to be addressed.

to be honest i don't even get people who don't think there is an obvious difference. it's hard for me to comprehend that someone would think a toddler and a lump of cells are on the same playing field in any regard.

to me personally the fact that one has been born and one hasn't is enough, but i'm just a cruel heartless individual like that.

I was simply asking what do you believe are the differences. Go back to the law of biogenesis. A persons produces a PERSON. In between conception and birth, it is a person at conception and when the women goes to give labor, because a person can ONLY reproduce another person. It is a human at all stages of existence, because again, as the law of biogenesis states, humans produces humans.

no one is claiming that it is "inhuman" in that sense that definition is talking about. nobody is arguing it's "inhuman" in the sense that it is literally something else (like a spider, or a dog, or a jelly fish, or a elephant).

I was not claiming anyone was. YOU were saying that is was a "lump of cells" You are essentially contradicting yourself in agreeing with the law of biogenesis, yet you are claiming it is a "lump of cells" which in infers you are saying it isn't a PERSON.

If you don't understand that, then of course you won't understand the rest.

exaggeration much? is a fetus simply a "short person". how many people do you know that are and inch tall? 4 inches? even 14?

and what a terrible analogy talking about a 4'11 person and a 6'4 person. neither of these are remotely close to a fetus, they've both been BIRTHED, for one. and of course we can think of about a million other ways that a 6'4 grown man is different than a fetus.

Again, you are basing everything on the basis that the unborn are basically not a person. But why don't you explain to me what defines a human? I was simply stating ways that people dismiss a fetus as being a person.

yeah you're right, some people do claim that, and rightly so because it makes no sense to say that something with an unconnected nervous system and no consciousness feels pain.

once again do you wanna know the difference between a mentally disabled person and a undeveloped fetus? one is born, and one isn't. as for those who can't feel pain...they have also been born. (and just like the 6'4 man, there are a ton of other things that set these people apart as people)

Goes back to the top. What defines a person? Why can't a fetus be a person? We're you not a person while in the womb at contraception? Doesn't this all go back to the law of biogenesis? This AGAIN, goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Intelligence should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not.

Also, I was not saying that mentally disabled people can't think. It seems someone read into it a little too much. I am saying their intellectual capabilities are weaker than those that are not mentally disabled. How can you disqualify an unborn child simply because it may not be as developed as a toddler?

why does it matter if they breathe air? well since in the real world to be a human, you have to breathe air, i would think that breathing air is a pretty important thing. air is absolutely essential to human life and survival. so i don't know why we'd brush something like breathing off as not all that important anyway!

and as far as the second part...ummmm what? living in and being completely dependent on the body of the mother is nothing like being in canada. this argument is by far the dumbest in the entire post and maybe the entire thread. it doesn't even make any sense. we are not talking about location being important in a geographic sense, we're talking about living in someone's body

Fetus's do breathe. They breathe right when they are zygotes. When a fetus, they breathe amniotic fluid. What about people with COPD? They RELY on breathing machines and are completely dependent on it. If you are going to try to throw the "but they are born" argument, what is the difference between a human and an unborn human? The only answer you have given me is that it is "unborn" which is no answer at all.

The point was that YOU are saying there is a difference of what a person is depending on their location. It appears you are claiming that they aren't persons because they are in their mother's wombs. But does a person stop being a person when it is in another location (this is where canada came from)? No, so why should the same go to unborn babies? This AGAIN, goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Location should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not.

a fetus is dependent on it's mother for every single thing. that's it's natural state. you don't have to throw this thing into peril for this to be the case. a toddler sitting there is not dependent on it's mother in the sense that a fetus is. notice that you first have to throw the toddler into some unnatural situation before you can call it dependent. dependence in the form of childcare and dependence in the form of literally not being able to survive in the absence of the mother for 5 minutes are not the same forms of dependence.

yes that is reaching way too far, but then again so was likening a fetus in the womb to being in canada, and taking the time out to point out that humans produce human fetuses as opposed to dog fetuses.

people who take insulin have been born, so that's a pretty big difference in itself.

New born children depend on their parents/guardians in every single fashion. If the parent doesn't tend and nurture the baby, it will die. This is similar to how a fetus depends on its mother. Both a baby and an unborn baby rely on the parents. Our dependencies extend to each other, and without the defense of the goodness of meeting human dependencies, none of us would be alive. So if we say dependency makes it not a person, than we at all points in the past and most likely in the future will be considered not persons Again, this goes back to the law of biogenesis, person produces a person. Dependency should NOT be a factor to decide what is human and what is not

all of those things seem to matter in my opinion when you take out your giant exaggerations. like saying an inch long fetus is equal to a 4'11 born human. or saying that being in the womb is basically like being in Canada or any other location in the world. or saying that a fetus is the same thing as a fully born developed mentally disabled person. or saying that the fact that a fetus can't survive outside it's mother is the same thing as the fact that if you threw a baby into a pool (or fire, or under a car, or anywhere else obviously perilous) it would be dependent on someone to save it.

Again, misinterpreted as already discussed.

oh yeah murder based on how one feels is dangerous huh? as opposed to that one kind of murder that isn't dangerous? i guess your saying that if a mother is allowed to abort a fetus then she might as well be able to go out and shoot a family of four in the head because she feels like it right? completely ignoring that these people aren't dependent on her, don't live in her, and oh yeah ARE BORN. ( as well, once again, of a long list of other attributes that separates them from a fetus.)

I think you are completely and entirely missing the point. Refer back to the areas above.

so i'm guessing you don't agree with the throwing away of any eggs used for vitro fertilization either? those people who throw away those fertilized eggs need to be in prison right now if you ask me. they are murders, a complete violent threat to society for sure. when they threw those eggs away...they might as well have been shoving a toddler into the trash can and suffocating it as it was kicking and screaming.



there's more to go into and this could be way more extensive than i felt like ( we can get into that i guess, since cb sucks so this is better than every other thread on here unfortunately). however let's not be mistaken that the vast majority of abortions are NOT at 9 months or even remotely close, the first trimester.

You totally went off on a tangent here, and again I ask you, define what is the difference between an unborn baby and a born baby other than it hasn't yet been born?

And again you are assuming about the vitro fertilization. I never even HINTED at that point so I'll just ignore that.

Also, I know this, I am not saying that abortions happen even near 9 months. I am arguing that once there is conception, that is a child. You are basing part of your argument (in this quote) on development. Why does development define a person? Is a child, who is obviously not as developed as an adult any different of being protected by their inalienable rights? If you say it's not born, go back to the law of biogenesis. A persons produces a PERSON. In between conception and birth, it is a person at conception and when the women goes to give labor. This is my argument. If you misunderstand, let me know.

I know this was a bit repetitive, but you seemed to contradict yourself or I wasn't clear enough so you misunderstood me.

[heyo-captain-jac...]

Are you saying retarded people can't think?

Those in a vegetative state can't. If I was brain dead, I would want to be killed.

So Peanups, not addressing this?