Roe vs. Wade

[soundnthefury]

i was browsing the cnn website and it seems that "Jane Roe" from the Roe vs. Wade case, which legalized abortion in '73. Just wanted to see what sort of feelings people have on the issue, especially since one of the women on the for front of pro-choice has been anti-abortion for the last 10 years.

[disturbed2]

abortion should be banned. hurting innocent children is wrong. yada yada yada yada

[droogsteve]

I'm pro-choice. I don't believe a first trimester fetus is a viable human life and don't like the idea of the government telling a woman what she can do with her body. If anyone disagreeing wants to try to convince me I'm wrong on this issue, don't bother using any religious arguments. I'm agnostic and you'd be wasting your time.

[Yoda]

There was a huge debate in the forum here about a month ago. That got really heated a couple of times. Anyway:
Personal view: Abortion at any time should be banned. The main question behind this whole discussion will be: when does life start? If it's able to be proven that life starts at conception, then ending that life will be illegal, no matter when it happens. The answer to this is that yes, life does start at conception. Even science supports this. How? Here: science states that genetics is, to put it in understandable terms, the "stuff" of life. Genetics determine everything about a person, all their physical traits, etc. The genetics of a person never, never once change from the moment of conception to the time that a person dies. I believe that in most states, the time that a fetus is indefinitely a human is somewhere like 28 weeks, yet at 13 weeks, you easily can see the fingers, toes, and facial features of the child. That fetus is an individual, and no one else has the right to take its life away.

[soundnthefury]

oh, i'm sorry everyone. i'm sorta new and i didn't realize this ground had been covered already. i'm sure noone wants to repeat themselves. my bad. and my original post was supposed to be that Jane Roe sought to overturn the ruling since she has become anti-abortion. I just read over my original words and it makes me seem like I should be off somewhere starting a short bus forum for the *special*.

[droogsteve]

Don't worry about bringing up something that's been discussed in the past, Sound. There are new members everyday who bring in a fresh perspective. I can't even count the number of Palestine/Israel threads we've had, but they're still interesting. I was part of the last abortion thread we had and it got pretty intense. We sort of let it die after some people who I won't name started to get personal and vicious. A new one where everyone would debate the facts and remain calm is a good idea.

[BigMattTheHobo]

im pro choice in early stages of development, but when to go to pull out a little human body, then thats murder. if a women really doesnt want a kid, then she needs to make up her mind early on to get rid of it.

[Delta]

The answer to this is that yes, life does start at conception. Yoda you are very close, but not on the mark. Basically when life starts is right after conception called Implantation (or something like that) Its when the embryo actually adhears to the Uteran wall. Once that happens, DEVELOPEMENT occurs. This is what defines the child as being a separate organism. Theoretically, a woman could concieve, but still have her period and lose the embryo. But when the embryo attatches to the Uterus, it is a new life. Abortion should still be banned no matter what though. Why should some confused woman have the choice of wether this child should live or die?

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Delta
Why should some confused woman have the choice of wether this child should live or die?

because its in her body, if a small organism was inside your body, you should have the choice of having it removed or not.

[Yoda]

Thanks Delta, I was informed otherwise, appreciate the correction. Matt, like I said, even if it IS inside her body, it's not HER body. It's that child's body. So you're saying that if your mom didn't want you, she could have said no and never had you? So you're saying it's ok to have ended your life, preventing you from experiencing all the things in life that you have (friendships, happiness, love)? All that, gone, because someone else decided you were too much of a burden?

[Dumbass]

Ok whatever I'm getting too confused with my posts and I'll just say it. I'm Yoda, I just felt like posting under a different name. Sorry bout that, but I just got a little bored of being a Dumbass, and I was tempted to be a 900 year old green guy that kicks some major ass, so sorry for the inconvenience.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Yoda
Thanks Delta, I was informed otherwise, appreciate the correction. Matt, like I said, even if it IS inside her body, it's not HER body. It's that child's body. So you're saying that if your mom didn't want you, she could have said no and never had you? So you're saying it's ok to have ended your life, preventing you from experiencing all the things in life that you have (friendships, happiness, love)? All that, gone, because someone else decided you were too much of a burden? How about if I call you Yoda-ass? j/k;) Seriously though, I agree with Matt. It is the womans body and a first trimester fetus is not a viable human being. If a person suffers a devestating brain injury and is declared brain dead his family is permitted to remove his feeding tube and allow him to die even though his heart and other organs continue to function. He is obviously still a person but the medical community recognizes that without brain function, he's not a living person. A first trimester fetus has the same lack of brain function. The rest of your argument is just meaningless emotion. If your parents had decided to use birth control you also would have missed all those things. Should birth control be banned too?

[Bergs]

because its in her body, if a small organism was inside your body, you should have the choice of having it removed or not.

It is not the womens body. It has 100% completely different DNA than the mother. It is in no way her body. Just because it is currently living off her body does not give her the right to kill it. (Unless of course the pregnancy will kill her) It is a human being regardless of what you believe droog. It is just in early development. You cant argue against that.

[Bergs]

If your parents had decided to use birth control you also would have missed all those things. Should birth control be banned too?

Birth control is different because it does one of two things.
1) Prevents the sperm from fertilizing the egg. Self explanatory.
2) Prevents the egg from implanting on the uterus lining which is as delta said the start of development and life.

[Viet Era Marine]

Come & listen to story bout a woman named Grace:

Grace, in her late 40's, becomes accidentaly pregnant. She carries the baby to term. Because there are no Ultrasound Devices, no one suspects that this child is a total waste ie: Arms & legs attached backwards in relation to the torso, head the size of an orange, ect). Luckily, this is a still birth & the child never gains her first breath.

MY SISTER SUZANNE IS BURIED IN FRESNO CALIF!

Now, all you Pro-Life muthers! Are you going to sit there & tell me you would have condemed my sister to a life like that!!

Belive me, you change your views when it's life experience & not some Morals / Philosophy class.

That's just the way I see it.

[droogsteve]

Excellent point, Marine. Your story of that profoundly damaged baby, along with the example of unwanted babies born to drug addicts who will live lives of nothing but misery, illustrates one of my problems with the "pro-life" crowd. They all care deeply about these children until they are born. What happens after that doesn't seem to concern them at all.

[Bergs]

I am sorry for your familys misfortune marine. I truely am. But the excuse that the baby "may" be fucked up or "may" have a shitty life is no excuse. I feel like I am repeating myself all over again but I told a story too in the last abortion debate

It was about a child born to two semi-retarded acoholics who were in extreme poverty. This couple had already had 9 children already. All of which were either still births or dead before the age of 3. Most people would say that this baby should be aborted.

If you think so too you would have killed bethoven. The point is you have NO IDEA what a child will make of his life if he were given the chance

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Bergs
If you think so too you would have killed bethoven. The point is you have NO IDEA what a child will make of his life if he were given the chance

you really think a child born into a family of semi retarted drunks would realy grow up to be anything more then a drunk herself?

[Viet Era Marine]

Just wish I could get my hands on some those damn High School / College Professors with their "I Know What's Best For You" attitude.

Of course, if the purpose of the "Save That Child @ Any Cost" line of thought is to make the population completly dependant on the "Government", then it's working just fine. :D

The saddest part of the "Life Begins at Conception" line of thought, is that the folks yelling the loudest about it don't have to live with the next 18 years (with option to renew).

When a simple C & D procedure would give the "OPPS" kids a second chance not to totaly throw their lives down the shitter.

It's just the way I see it.

P.S. Sorry Bergs, I know we're on oppisite sides on this one, but you just can't ask someone to piss away 20+ years of their lives on the off chance the little horror might turn out to be "Beethoven".

[Bergs]

you really think a child born into a family of semi retarted drunks would realy grow up to be anything more then a drunk herself?

Yes. I happened in the case I cited. It can happen to anyone.

Marine, I am not sure what you were talking about in some of those lines but I have an answer to the last one.

P.S. Sorry Bergs, I know we're on oppisite sides on this one, but you just can't ask someone to piss away 20+ years of their lives on the off chance the little horror might turn out to be "Beethoven".

Then dont have sex. If you cannot accept the responsibility dont do it. I am 18 years old. I have sex all the time. I am as safe as possible about it but I realize that there is a certain level of risk and I accept the responsibility for my actions. If you cant accept the responsibility then dont do it. And if you dont accept the responsibility and do it anyway. Tough shit.

That is what is wrong with America today. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions. People sue for stupid shit. They blame everything on others. They refuse to serve their country. Where did responsibility go!!!

[droogsteve]

Mistakes happen, birth control fails. A person's entire life shouldn't be ruined because of an accident . As for the irresponsible idiots who are too stupid to use birth control: It's fucked up, I agree. But forcing these idiots who can't even care for themselves to care for the multiple children that they would have is no solution. Those children would most likely be neglected or abused. Don't even say they could be adopted. That's a fine solution if you happen to have a healthy white baby, but the social service system is already overburdened with minority children and children with mental and physical problems caused by abuse from parents who didn't want them. If abortion were to become illegal there would be thousands more of these children every year. Why don't you worry less about fetuses and worry more about the the thousands of children that nobody gives a shit about?

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Bergs
Yes. I happened in the case I cited. It can happen to anyone.

Marine, I am not sure what you were talking about in some of those lines but I have an answer to the last one.



Then dont have sex. If you cannot accept the responsibility dont do it. I am 18 years old. I have sex all the time. I am as safe as possible about it but I realize that there is a certain level of risk and I accept the responsibility for my actions. If you cant accept the responsibility then dont do it. And if you dont accept the responsibility and do it anyway. Tough shit.

That is what is wrong with America today. Nobody wants to accept responsibility for their actions. People sue for stupid shit. They blame everything on others. They refuse to serve their country. Where did responsibility go!!!

responsibility didnt go anywhere, just technology has stepped in and is willing to help people out with mistakes they may have made. if you got in a bad car crash because of your mistake wouldnt you want technology in the form of the jaws of life to get you out of your trouble?

[Delta]

if you got in a bad car crash because of your mistake wouldnt you want technology in the form of the jaws of life to get you out of your trouble? Yes but the Jaws of life does not kill someone to help you.

Heres a thought for you Marine. You say that the baby was still born and that its body was horribly mangled. That could simply mean that the child had no chance of survival, but should you deny him/her the chance to live? I have said this before and ill say it again. I would rather have been born deaf blind and without arms and legs, then to have never been born at all. And EVERY SINGLE PERSON would agree.


But forcing these idiots who can't even care for themselves to care for the multiple children that they would have is no solution. They dont have to. They could simply give the baby over to the State. The child would either go into foster care, or be adopted. Both results are much better than death.

[Dumbass]

So, droog, you're saying let them take the easy way out, because it's too hard for them? Didn't we talk about this a while ago? And that last part of MY post was emotion? Yet there goes Marine, going all emotional on us.
Question: a parasite is inside a woman's body, is the parasite part of her body? No, it's a totally different individual organism. No one's proved otherwise. A baby is inside the woman's body, but it still isn't the woman's body. When does a fetus become a viable human? What event happens 28 weeks after conception that is so significant that you can say "THAT'S when a baby becomes a viable human."? There isn't one, simple as that.
And if people are just taking the easy way out, what have they learned? NOTHING. They're not taking responsibility of their actions. When you were a kid, and you did something bad, didn't your parents make you apologize? Say you're sorry, you won't do it again? Weren't you taking responsibility for your actions? And then didn't you learn from your mistakes? Yet here you sit, saying that people shouldn't have to, that they'll learn from their mistakes by saying "No I don't want to." Get real, that's the biggest bull shit yet said here. People don't learn by taking the easy way out, they learn by taking responsibility, by being adults about it.

[Delta]

Heres a nice stat for you pro choicers:

Number of abortions per year: Approximately 46 Million
Number of abortions per day: Approximately 126,000

Source: http://www.abortiontv.com/AbortionStatistics.htm#Abortions%20Worldwide

Edit: So abortion started around 1970, so lets do some math here...................So thats about 1,472,000,000 Yep, thats a Billion there.


This isnt pro choice, Its Pro-GENOCIDE

Just thought Id add a little rant there.

[Bergs]

Thats not what I am talking about Matt and you know it. The jaws of life saving you from an accident is not hurting anyone else. Frivolous lawsuits and abortion get you out of a situation by hurting someone else. Where is the responsibility with that?

[Viet Era Marine]

Sorry Bergs, know I jumped around a lot on that one.

OK, I'll try to sum up.
.................................................. .........................................
Just wish I could get my hands on some those damn High School / College Professors with their "I Know What's Best For You" attitude.
.................................................. .........................................

What I meant was: These "Educators" have spent most of their lives in "Academia" & have no clue what life is like in the "Real" world, yet here they are teaching "Morals" to our kids.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, if the purpose of the "Save That Child @ Any Cost" line of thought is to make the population completly dependant on the "Government", then it's working just fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guess that was a rambling.

What I meant was: Anything you are dependent on, you are a slave to. Government Depenency = Government Slave.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of personal responsibility, and I aplaud your own, but wouldn't it be better to give some 15 year old girl a second chance at becoming something other than a "Trailer Park Momma".
Because the next time she hears "Oh, I love You Baby", she'll be thinking "If You Love Me, Where The Hell Is Your Condom Dickhead".


You're way above average for 18 (wish I'd had that kind of BRAINS) & I'm not being a condescending prick here.

That's just the way I see it.

[Delta]

wouldn't it be better to give some 15 year old girl a second chance at becoming something other than a "Trailer Park Momma". Again I would like to point to my earlier post. She could give the child away instead of KILLING it.

Because the next time she hears "Oh, I love You Baby", she'll be thinking "If You Love Me, Where The Hell Is Your Condom Dickhead". The sad fact there, is that some women are just not that smart. Why else do you see soooooo many single mothers with 4 or 5 kids living off welfare?

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
So, droog, you're saying let them take the easy way out, because it's too hard for them? No that's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to want to force these people to have children nobody wants as some sort of punishment for being irresponsible. How is that good for anyone?
And if people are just taking the easy way out, what have they learned? NOTHING. They're not taking responsibility of their actions. When you were a kid, and you did something bad, didn't your parents make you apologize? Say you're sorry, you won't do it again? Weren't you taking responsibility for your actions? And then didn't you learn from your mistakes? Yet here you sit, saying that people shouldn't have to, that they'll learn from their mistakes by saying "No I don't want to." Get real, that's the biggest bull shit yet said here. People don't learn by taking the easy way out, they learn by taking responsibility, by being adults about it. You're joking, right? You're actually trying to make a comparison between forcing a child to apologize for bad behavior and forcing some piece of shit drug addicts to have children that they don't want and can't care for to teach them a lesson about responsibility??!! Do you think they're going to say: "Wow I can't have an abortion. I'm gonna put down this crackpipe, get a job and take responsibility for my life." Of course not. Assuming the kids won't be born severely fucked up from the mothers drug use during pregnancy, they're going to leave the kids to starve in a filthy apartment while the go back to their normal druggie lifestyles. That's a good stat that Bergs posted. That would be 46 million unwanted children to completely overwhelm a social service system that can't handle the unwanted and abused children they already have. Saying all these children could be adopted is simply ludicrous. There are already countless unwanted children that will never be adopted

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Delta
Again I would like to point to my earlier post. She could give the child away instead of KILLING it. Give it away to WHO? There are already thousand of children waiting to be adopted. Maybe the government should just build huge homes for all the unwanted babies that will result. Yeah, it'll be great. Just like orphanages in the 1800's :rolleyes:

[BigMattTheHobo]

ok pulling out the baby during later stages of pregnancy is murder, because its a little baby. but when its still a little bundle of cells with no human characteristics, then its just that, a bundle of cells with no human characteristics.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by droogsteve
No that's not what I'm saying at all. You seem to want to force these people to have children nobody wants as some sort of punishment for being irresponsible. How is that good for anyone?
If they really, really don't want that child, fine. Put it up for adoption. No one's hurt that way. I'm not saying that it's a punishment, I'm saying they're being mature, adult humans and taking responsibility. How hard is it to understand that?

You're joking, right? You're actually trying to make a comparison between forcing a child to apologize for bad behavior and forcing some piece of shit drug addicts to have children that they don't want and can't care for to teach them a lesson about responsibility??!! Do you think they're going to say: "Wow I can't have an abortion. I'm gonna put down this crackpipe, get a job and take responsibility for my life." Of course not. Assuming the kids won't be born severely fucked up from the mothers drug use during pregnancy, they're going to leave the kids to starve in a filthy apartment while the go back to their normal druggie lifestyles. That's a good stat that Bergs posted. That would be 46 million unwanted children to completely overwhelm a social service system that can't handle the unwanted and abused children they already have. Saying all these children could be adopted is simply ludicrous. There are already countless unwanted children that will never be adopted
And you're saying that abortion will end all that? How does ending a life justify that? It doesn't. And no, you can't prove me wrong there, it's not possible to say that killing someone is better than letting them grow up, even if they have a fucked up life. We already argued about that, you're just bringing up the same stuff over again.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by BigMattTheHobo
ok pulling out the baby during later stages of pregnancy is murder, because its a little baby. but when its still a little bundle of cells with no human characteristics, then its just that, a bundle of cells with no human characteristics.
The first part is right. The second part is wrong, and I already told you why, and no one could prove me wrong. Science clearly shows that a human life begins at conception. Genetics prove this; the DNA of a "little bundle of cells" is no different than that of the baby, child, teen, adult that grown from that "little bundle of cells." It is a human from conception.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
If they really, really don't want that child, fine. Put it up for adoption. No one's hurt that way. I'm not saying that it's a punishment, I'm saying they're being mature, adult humans and taking responsibility. How hard is it to understand? And you say I repeat myself? All you pro-lifers can say is "adoption adoption adoption". WHO IS GOING TO ADOPT ALL THESE UNWANTED BABIES THAT WILL RESULT FROM BANNING ABORTION??!! No one, that's who. There are already thousands of children that will never be adopted. How is having a child, only to dump it on the welfare system being a "mature, adult human and taking responsibility?." It's not. It's forcing taxpayers like ME to pay for their unwanted children.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
The first part is right. The second part is wrong, and I already told you why, and no one could prove me wrong. Science clearly shows that a human life begins at conception. Genetics prove this; the DNA of a "little bundle of cells" is no different than that of the baby, child, teen, adult that grown from that "little bundle of cells." It is a human from conception. What the hell does that prove? Of course it has human DNA. What did you think it would have? Frog DNA? When you cut your toenails the clippings are filled with human DNA. Theoretically you could be cloned from this DNA. Does that make them human beings? The DNA in an undeveloped fetus doesn't make it a living person.

[Bergs]

So your solution is to kill them. Great idea!

[droogsteve]

An unformed fetus is a collection of cells, not a human being. You might as well worry about killing your appendix when you have it removed.

[disturbed2]

a undeveloped fetus is a before stage of being a human. i dont know why we are worried about abortion. china should be doing more of this kind of things.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Dumbass
The first part is right. The second part is wrong, and I already told you why, and no one could prove me wrong. Science clearly shows that a human life begins at conception. Genetics prove this; the DNA of a "little bundle of cells" is no different than that of the baby, child, teen, adult that grown from that "little bundle of cells." It is a human from conception.

prove that from the beggining that the bundle of cells has human thought, emotion, and senses and i will agree that it is a person.

[Nocturnal]

well abortion/non abortion beliefs aside,

Does anyone else thing it is a crock of shit that this lady who was the champion of pro-choice is now pro life? She claims that she never knew what the word "abort" meant. She says she was thinking of the whole "abort the mission" thing from some movie.

Even pro-lifers would have to detest this moron. How can you affect the lives of millions of people and then suddenly turn around and say, never mind I change my mind. :rolleyes:

[soundnthefury]

related question: what are you opinions on stem cell research. i know it would probably coincide with your viewpoint on abortion, but if the abortion has already occured, what is the problem with using the fetus to help others?

[Dumbass]

droog, the difference between toenails/appendix and a fetus is that toenails and appendixes don't grow to be human beings. Come on, that's common sense, and your argument is pointless there.
BigMatt, it's called development. You aren't given everything at conception, and neither are you given everything at birth. You don't aquire thought at conception because you don't have something called a BRAIN (note the sarcasm). Neither do you get the ability to kick, punch, breath at conception, but does that prove anything? No. Some people never can kick or punch, does that mean that at conception because they lack only 1 ability of human function that they are no longer human? No, of course not. And when you're born, even then you're still developing. Your skeletal system isn't entirely of bone, it's mostly cartilage. You grow in height, weight, your eye color changes, you get hair, but you don't have THOSE at conception either, do you? What are you trying to say here?

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by soundnthefury
related question: what are you opinions on stem cell research. i know it would probably coincide with your viewpoint on abortion, but if the abortion has already occured, what is the problem with using the fetus to help others?
No offense, this is an excellent topic and all, but I think it's best if another thread were started on this, because it also can get rather lengtly.

[Delta]

Its pretty clear that emotions are running pretty high in this thread, so Ill make one more post and call it a day here. Droog, your argument about where the unwanted children will go is a good one, but I feel that such a problem does not warrent the death of said child. I just feel that its not our choice to choose which child lives and which one dies. Maybe, just MAYBEEEE there could be cases where an extremely early abortion could be warrented, I just dont know.

I guess what upsets me the most are the stats I posted. It was like 120,000 abortions world wide every day. Too many people are using abortion as simply a way to get out of having a kid, and I think thats just wrong.

[shade]

Belive me, you change your views when it's life experience & not some Morals / Philosophy class.
I had a brother that was born 6 inches long. He died after a few days. Damn glad we gave him a chance.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
droog, the difference between toenails/appendix and a fetus is that toenails and appendixes don't grow to be human beings. Come on, that's common sense, and your argument is pointless there. My argument is not pointless, you just missed my point. You stated that a fetus was a viable living human being simply because it contained human DNA. It's not.
You don't aquire thought at conception because you don't have something called a BRAIN That's one of the points I'm trying to make. Without a functioning brain it's not a living person.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by droogsteve
My argument is not pointless, you just missed my point. You stated that a fetus was a viable living human being simply because it contained human DNA. It's not.

Without a functioning brain it's not a living person.
Can you prove that a fetus isn't a viable human? I haven't seen any good arguments that support this. It's all just opinion, where's the proof of your statement?
Droog, you're repeating yourself on the second part. Of course without a brain it's not living. But if I take out someone's brain, does that make them any less human? Of course not, they're still human, they're just dead. What is your point here?

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Droog, you're repeating yourself on the second part. Of course without a brain it's not living. But if I take out someone's brain, does that make them any less human? Of course not, they're still human, they're just dead. What is your point here? My point is, if it's not living person, abortion is not killing. It's simply a medical procedure.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Can you prove that a fetus isn't a viable human? I haven't seen any good arguments that support this. It's all just opinion, where's the proof of your statement?
Droog, you're repeating yourself on the second part. Of course without a brain it's not living. But if I take out someone's brain, does that make them any less human? Of course not, they're still human, they're just dead. What is your point here?

well having a brain at one point makes you a human, even if you end up getting it removed. but never having one, and never having other characteristics that make you human make you non-human.

[BigMattTheHobo]

its funny how pro lifers want to save human life SOOOOO much by being against abortion and stem cell research, but most of them are MORE then willing to bomb foreign countries where little kids and babies live.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by BigMattTheHobo
well having a brain at one point makes you a human, even if you end up getting it removed. but never having one, and never having other characteristics that make you human make you non-human.
Fish, spiders, mammals, reptiles, amphibians all have brains; does that make them human? No. So how does having a brain make an organism a human? That's what your first sentence is saying.
Second, I already addressed the second part of your post.
Originally posted by Dumbass
You aren't given everything at conception, and neither are you given everything at birth. You don't aquire thought at conception because you don't have something called a BRAIN (note the sarcasm). Neither do you get the ability to kick, punch, breath at conception, but does that prove anything? No. Some people never can kick or punch, does that mean that at conception because they lack only 1 ability of human function that they are no longer human? No, of course not. And when you're born, even then you're still developing. Your skeletal system isn't entirely of bone, it's mostly cartilage. You grow in height, weight, your eye color changes, you get hair, but you don't have THOSE at conception either, do you?

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by BigMattTheHobo
its funny how pro lifers want to save human life SOOOOO much by being against abortion and stem cell research, but most of them are MORE then willing to bomb foreign countries where little kids and babies live.
Totally different subject, please don't do stuff like that where you bring up another topic. If you really feel the need to discuss, then why don't you start another thread? Sorry I just don't want to start another discussion inside this one.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Fish, spiders, mammals, reptiles, amphibians all have brains; does that make them human? No. So how does having a brain make an organism a human? That's what your first sentence is saying. AAARRRGGGHH *rips out hair in frustration* OK, one more time. *takes deep breath* Nobody is saying that humans are the only creatures with brains. Matt and I are trying to say that if there is no brain function it's not yet a living being. A fertilized fish egg is not yet a fish, a fertilized spider egg is not yet a spider and a fertilized human egg is not yet human. Do you get our point now??!!

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by droogsteve
AAARRRGGGHH *rips out hair in frustration* OK, one more time. *takes deep breath* Nobody is saying that humans are the only creatures with brains. Matt and I are trying to say that if there is no brain function it's not yet a living being. A fertilized fish egg is not yet a fish, a fertilized spider egg is not yet a spider and a fertilized human egg is not yet human. Do you get our point now??!!

i would second that

[william]

hows this for an idea?

i think that abortion should only be used in extreme circumstances (rape, the child or mother will die if the birth occurs, etc)

also...i dont really understand some pro-choice arguments. like it seems that if a man gets in a fight with his pregnant wife and kills the unwanted baby in the process, he goes to jail...as he should. but if the women kills the baby through abortion...nothing happens.
i mean if someone would help me there...i would appreciate it.

[soundnthefury]

in regards to being charged for causing a miscarriage, is there some sort of limit or method for gauging it. like, does it vary upon how far along the pregnancy is? i'm not sure what the extent of the law is.

[Bergs]

In a related story. The Laci Peterson case? Do you guys agree with charging it as a double murder?

I agree because, besides my pro-life belief that abortion itself is murder, conner was almost a full term fetus, 8 months I believe. I think it is great that they charge it as a double murder.

[droogsteve]

I agree. I don't believe in abortion beyond the first trimester because after that the fetus begins showing signs of being a functioning independent being. At the eight month point in it's development it could survive on it's own if born prematurely. So I believe a murder charge is appropriate.

[Dumbass]

Agreed, droog. William, haven't you been gone a while? Or have I just missed everything you posted? Regardless, welcome back if you've been away.
Originally posted by droogsteve
AAARRRGGGHH *rips out hair in frustration* OK, one more time. *takes deep breath* Nobody is saying that humans are the only creatures with brains. Matt and I are trying to say that if there is no brain function it's not yet a living being. A fertilized fish egg is not yet a fish, a fertilized spider egg is not yet a spider and a fertilized human egg is not yet human. Do you get our point now??!!
Ok, sorry, but the way that Matt worded his sentence made me confused on just what he was trying to say, my bad:cool:.
I understand everything you're saying, but then the question comes up, "What defines being alive?" From what I know, it's been determined that the brain's not the primary characteristic of being alive. So your definition of being alive may differ from mine, and that's a whole different topic in itself. But what you and Matt makes sense, so kudos to both of you.:D

[shade]

Source (http://mimi.essortment.com/characteristics_rbrc.htm)

This is the scientific definition of life.

------------------------------------
Six characteristics of life:
Theme #1 - Cells

All living things are composed of one or more cells.
Different types of cells have different "jobs" within the organism. Each life form begins from one cell, which then will split. These cells split, and so on. After this has happened several times, differentiation is undergone, when the cells change so that they are not the same thing anymore. Then they are used to begin to put together the final organism, some cells, for example, as the eyes, some as the heart, etc. The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be "living."

Theme#2 - Organization

Complex organization patterns are found in all living organisms. They arrange themselves on very small levels, grouping like things together. On larger levels, they become visible. This also has to do with differentiation, as the cells are organized in a manner that makes sense for the organism after they change to what they’ll be in the final organism.

Theme#3 - Energy Use

All organisms use energy. The sum of the chemical energy they use is called metabolism. This energy is used to carry out everything they do. Autotrophs (plants) use energy from the sun for photosynthesis, to make their own ‘food’ (glucose). Heterotrophs (animals and humans) must ingest food for this purpose.

Theme#4 - Homeostasis

All organisms have stable internal conditions which must be maintained in order to remain alive. These include temperature, water content, heartbeat, and other such things. In a way, this has to do with energy use, because a certain level of energy must be kept within the body at all times. For this, obviously, humans must then ingest food on a regular basis. Not all conditions are for the body to maintain itself; though most are.

Theme#5 - Growth

All organisms grow and change. Cells divide to form new, identical cells. Differentiation happens, as well, when cells mutate into other types of cells, making a more complex organism. Organisms growing, changing, and becoming more complex is called development. Single-celled organisms do grow as well, but they will only become slightly larger – this is nearly unmeasurable.

Theme#6 - Reproduction

All organisms reproduce in order to continue the species' life. This is combining genetic information (in sexual reproduction) or splitting into two organisms (in asexual reproduction) in order to create another of the same species. In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have some characteristics from the mother, and some from father. It may look like either of them, or it may not. In asexual reproduction, the new organism is an exact copy of the first. Sometimes, not every member of a species is able to reproduce. As long as others are (which we know they can, if they still exist today) then it does not threaten the species.

-------------------------------

So, explain to me which of these criteria fetus's do not meet? The single factor that makes a Human fetus Human and not another random animal is its DNA. So, if an organism matches all of those criteria and has Human DNA as opposed to... goat DNA, how is it not Human life?

You arent really arguing about whether or not its human, you know it is. You are arguing about whether or not it has value.

[william]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Agreed, droog. William, haven't you been gone a while? Or have I just missed everything you posted? Regardless, welcome back if you've been away.

yeah i havent posted in a long time.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Source (http://mimi.essortment.com/characteristics_rbrc.htm)

This is the scientific definition of life.

------------------------------------
Six characteristics of life:
Theme #1 - Cells

All living things are composed of one or more cells.
Different types of cells have different "jobs" within the organism. Each life form begins from one cell, which then will split. These cells split, and so on. After this has happened several times, differentiation is undergone, when the cells change so that they are not the same thing anymore. Then they are used to begin to put together the final organism, some cells, for example, as the eyes, some as the heart, etc. The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be "living."

Theme#2 - Organization

Complex organization patterns are found in all living organisms. They arrange themselves on very small levels, grouping like things together. On larger levels, they become visible. This also has to do with differentiation, as the cells are organized in a manner that makes sense for the organism after they change to what they’ll be in the final organism.

Theme#3 - Energy Use

All organisms use energy. The sum of the chemical energy they use is called metabolism. This energy is used to carry out everything they do. Autotrophs (plants) use energy from the sun for photosynthesis, to make their own ‘food’ (glucose). Heterotrophs (animals and humans) must ingest food for this purpose.

Theme#4 - Homeostasis

All organisms have stable internal conditions which must be maintained in order to remain alive. These include temperature, water content, heartbeat, and other such things. In a way, this has to do with energy use, because a certain level of energy must be kept within the body at all times. For this, obviously, humans must then ingest food on a regular basis. Not all conditions are for the body to maintain itself; though most are.

Theme#5 - Growth

All organisms grow and change. Cells divide to form new, identical cells. Differentiation happens, as well, when cells mutate into other types of cells, making a more complex organism. Organisms growing, changing, and becoming more complex is called development. Single-celled organisms do grow as well, but they will only become slightly larger – this is nearly unmeasurable.

Theme#6 - Reproduction

All organisms reproduce in order to continue the species' life. This is combining genetic information (in sexual reproduction) or splitting into two organisms (in asexual reproduction) in order to create another of the same species. In sexual reproduction, the new organism will have some characteristics from the mother, and some from father. It may look like either of them, or it may not. In asexual reproduction, the new organism is an exact copy of the first. Sometimes, not every member of a species is able to reproduce. As long as others are (which we know they can, if they still exist today) then it does not threaten the species.

-------------------------------

So, explain to me which of these criteria fetus's do not meet? The single factor that makes a Human fetus Human and not another random animal is its DNA. So, if an organism matches all of those criteria and has Human DNA as opposed to... goat DNA, how is it not Human life?

You arent really arguing about whether or not its human, you know it is. You are arguing about whether or not it has value.
First, thank you for posting this, I think it really does help encourage the discussion. However, I find problems with this definition.
Each life form begins from one cell, which then will split.
The only arguable exception to this is viruses. They are not composed of cells, but are said to be "living."
That is not totally correct. Amoeba are unicellular. They don't necessarily "split", unless you consider mitosis a splitting. I'm not saying it's your fault at all, I'm just saying that the definition is missing something.
And I agree with you on your point. And to add to your last sentence, how can someone put a value on human life? The only recorded incidents of this were in slavery, at least from what I know, and that's been outlawed for quite some time now. One could argue that adoption puts a price on life, but a good counterpoint is that the money goes into all the legal fees, not necessarily the person.

[shade]

Well, its refering to a living organism... an organisation of cells. Amoebas are unicellular... and yeah, split during mitosis.

[shade]

So anyone who supports abortion willing to touch my earlier post or are you going to just ignore it and pretend it doesnt exist? You guys sure dont like science... or religion... or justice... or anything that is against your views. Just keep lying to yourselves.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
You arent really arguing about whether or not its human, you know it is. You are arguing about whether or not it has value. That's common sense, Shade. Did you think I was claiming it's a plant? It is about value. Before the brain is formed I don't believe it has value as a human being. Just as a person who has been declared brain dead. The both meet the criteria for life, but are not actually human beings, a person's mind being what makes them human. And if I want to see someone lying to themselves and ignoring science, I'll debate someone who takes the bible literally.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by droogsteve
That's common sense, Shade. Did you think I was claiming it's a plant? It is about value. Before the brain is formed I don't believe it has value as a human being. Just as a person who has been declared brain dead. The both meet the criteria for life, but are not actually human beings, a person's mind being what makes them human. And if I want to see someone lying to themselves and ignoring science, I'll debate someone who takes the bible literally.
So, if human life has value at one point and not at another, who gets to decide when it happens? You? The mother? The government? Scientists? Who has the right to say that someone (at one point in their development) is worthless? I'm not disagreeing with your statement YET, I'm just getting into it more.

[shade]

Yeah droog, you completely dodged my statement about the value of human life being the sum of their actions and FUTURE actions or potential. A brain dead comatose person with 0 chance of waking up has no future potential. A fetus does. What do you have to say about that? You cant dodge this one.

[Instigator]

Shade, when a guy jacks off in a Slushie cup the sperm had the potential to live, to blossom into a wonderful baby. The sperm had the potential to become the next MLK, the next Mozart...but outlawing jacking off is a stupid idea.

Your "everything is beautiful" bullshit sounds like such an unabashed sterotype of an artsy fartsy liberal that it's hilarious. Go smoke some cheeba and check out the killer sunset while you're pondering pontential human life.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Yeah droog, you completely dodged my statement about the value of human life being the sum of their actions and FUTURE actions or potential. A brain dead comatose person with 0 chance of waking up has no future potential. A fetus does. What do you have to say about that? You cant dodge this one. I went to sleep before seeing this post so I didn't respond last night. But Instigator has summed it up pretty well.

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by Instigator
Shade, when a guy jacks off in a Slushie cup the sperm had the potential to live, to blossom into a wonderful baby. The sperm had the potential to become the next MLK, the next Mozart...but outlawing jacking off is a stupid idea.

Your "everything is beautiful" bullshit sounds like such an unabashed sterotype of an artsy fartsy liberal that it's hilarious. Go smoke some cheeba and check out the killer sunset while you're pondering pontential human life.

yes hes back, and better then ever :D

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by Instigator
Shade, when a guy jacks off in a Slushie cup the sperm had the potential to live, to blossom into a wonderful baby. The sperm had the potential to become the next MLK, the next Mozart...but outlawing jacking off is a stupid idea.

Your "everything is beautiful" bullshit sounds like such an unabashed sterotype of an artsy fartsy liberal that it's hilarious. Go smoke some cheeba and check out the killer sunset while you're pondering pontential human life.
Yea, yea, you're right about that, it could be the next great person...except for the fact that there's no egg for the sperm to fertilize. Sperm on its own won't grow to be a human, there needs to be fertilization.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Yea, yea, you're right about that, it could be the next great person...except for the fact that there's no egg for the sperm to fertilize. Sperm on its own won't grow to be a human, there needs to be fertilization. I'm not even going to point out that a fertilized egg is not yet a person again. We're arguing in circles.

[shade]

Shade, when a guy jacks off in a Slushie cup the sperm had the potential to live, to blossom into a wonderful baby. The sperm had the potential to become the next MLK, the next Mozart...but outlawing jacking off is a stupid idea.
Would you like a big glass of retarded with that? Sperm doesnt self replicate... it doesnt become anything. It has to fertilize an egg.

I'm not even going to point out that a fertilized egg is not yet a person again. We're arguing in circles.
A fertilized egg is the first human cell. Are you going to try to say it isnt? If not, please do tell what animal it is the first cell of.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
A fertilized egg is the first human cell. Are you going to try to say it isnt? If not, please do tell what animal it is the first cell of. For about the hundreth time: I never said it wasn't a human cell. I said it wasn't yet a person. That's my last post on this thread. All of us are just repeating ourselves now.

[shade]

Yup we are. Its not just a human cell though. It is the only human cell that upon splitting, and splitting its splits, has the potential to form the rest of the body. Unlike one of your skin cells, liver cells, heart cells, etc, that can only form in to more of themselves. That is another reason why it is special.

[Dumbass]

Droog, what you just say makes NO sense whatsoever. You say that you don't disagree that it's human, but you say it's not a person? Where do you see a difference? In value? You never did answer my question, droog. Who has the right to say that a child is worthless one minute and has worth the next? You never answered it, so we're not totally in circles yet.

[shade]

So... I wonder if they think that its ok to punch pregnant women in the stomach? Its not afterall killing a baby according to them.

Dumbass, they will never answer the value of life question.

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
So... I wonder if they think that its ok to punch pregnant women in the stomach?

OK, this is the same as this:

Person 1: I believe in the death penalty.
Person 2: SO THEN ITS Ok TO SNIPE ANYONE YOU WANT FROM A BALCONY?

NO, shade, you dumb fuck, that is not ok. it is, however, ok to end a pregnancy early in the woman's term by a liscensed doctor WITH HER CONSENT.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Dumbass, they will never answer the value of life question.
Originally posted by Instigator
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shade
[B]OK, this is the same as this:

Person 1: I believe in the death penalty.
Person 2: SO THEN ITS Ok TO SNIPE ANYONE YOU WANT FROM A BALCONY?

NO, shade, you dumb fuck, that is not ok. it is, however, ok to end a pregnancy early in the woman's term by a liscensed doctor WITH HER CONSENT.
Point proven. Thank you Instigator.

[shade]

Its amazing how liberals always forget the prerequisite for death penalty: UNIQUELY HORRIBLE CRIME. It takes more than just one murder. You have to do a double murder, a murder+rape, a murder+torture, a violent murder, murder+robbery, murder+SOMETHING SEVERE to warrant death penalty.

Babies just have to be conceived. See a double standard?

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by shade
Its amazing how liberals always forget the prerequisite for death penalty: UNIQUELY HORRIBLE CRIME. It takes more than just one murder. You have to do a double murder, a murder+rape, a murder+torture, a violent murder, murder+robbery, murder+SOMETHING SEVERE to warrant death penalty.

Babies just have to be conceived. See a double standard?

shade i thought in texas they will kill a person just for one murder? correct me if im wrong.

[MooDogster]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Droog, what you just say makes NO sense whatsoever. You say that you don't disagree that it's human, but you say it's not a person? Where do you see a difference? In value? You never did answer my question, droog. Who has the right to say that a child is worthless one minute and has worth the next? You never answered it, so we're not totally in circles yet.

There's a huge difference between human and a person. A bundle of cells cannot be called a baby or a person. If you want to ban aborting a cell cluster, ban surgery that removes tumors, and ban antibacterial soap.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
Droog, what you just say makes NO sense whatsoever. You say that you don't disagree that it's human, but you say it's not a person? Where do you see a difference? In value? You never did answer my question, droog. Who has the right to say that a child is worthless one minute and has worth the next? You never answered it, so we're not totally in circles yet. I HAVE answered it. Numerous times. You just don't like my answer. When it has developed enough to have some sort of brain activity it is a person. I use the first trimester as a guideline because before three months there is no chance the brain is developed enough to have any sort of activity. It actually takes longer than the third month before such activity could conceivable begin but I prefer to err on the side of caution. Before that is is a fertilized egg, not a person. Just so you don't ask me the value of life question AGAIN, since without brain activity it is not yet a human being I don't feel it has life that has any value. And just so you don't bring up the value of it's future potential AGAIN, if someone uses birth control, think of all the potential Beehtovens and Einsteins that are being prevented from being born and acheiving their potential. Just because a child is prevented after a sperm cell has fertilized an egg cell instead of before doen't make a bit of difference. That's a potentially great person that will never be born. If Beethoven's parents had practiced birth control, it would have prevented him from being born as surely as an abortion. Do you want to ban birth control too?

[shade]

shade i thought in texas they will kill a person just for one murder? correct me if im wrong.
Yes, you are wrong. We have a life sentence in texas, which most murderers get unless there is something unique about their crime, such as extra brutality, odds of committing a future murder, etc.

There's a huge difference between human and a person. A bundle of cells cannot be called a baby or a person.
And you are? A bigger bundle of cells? So... guess you arent a person.

If you want to ban aborting a cell cluster, ban surgery that removes tumors, and ban antibacterial soap.
It is the only cell cluster that grows in to a complete human being. Why cant you fucktards understand this? Do clusters of cancer cells grow to complete human beings? That is the fucking difference.

When it has developed enough to have some sort of brain activity it is a person.
So what about comatose people that can wake up at any moment, but at the time being are brain dead? They are aliens?

If Beethoven's parents had practiced birth control, it would have prevented him from being born as surely as an abortion.
Funny.. my parents used birth control. Then they decided to have children... and here I am.

Do you want to ban birth control too?
This has already been covered, I (as with most pro lifers) support the use of any pre conception birth control.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
So what about comatose people that can wake up at any moment, but at the time being are brain dead? They are aliens?
Comatose people are not brain dead, Shade. They have brain activity. That is the difference between brain death and a coma. Nobody is temporarily brain dead. They are only in a deep state of unconsiousness.

[shade]

Ah ha... so I guess you would be against pulling the plug on comatose people?

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Ah ha... so I guess you would be against pulling the plug on comatose people? I already see where you're trying to go with this, Shade, but a comatose person is already a person. A fertilized egg is not. As for pulling the plug on brain dead people, I'm all for it. Families shouldn't be subjected to the pain and expense of caring for someone who's not even really living.

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
We have a life sentence in texas, which most murderers get unless there is something unique about their crime, such as extra brutality, odds of committing a future murder, etc.

exactly. He was right; one murder can warrant death in Texas. Another half-truth from shade, everybody.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by MooDogster
There's a huge difference between human and a person. A bundle of cells cannot be called a baby or a person. If you want to ban aborting a cell cluster, ban surgery that removes tumors, and ban antibacterial soap.
Again, difference between that cell cluster and tumors/antibacterial soap (why the hell is this even here?):
Tumors and antibacterial will never become living independent organisms.
Can't be called a baby or a person, eh? I call the bundle of cells formerly known as a zygote a baby or a person. It can be called a person, it just depends on your view, smart one.

[Dumbass]

This really has gone far enough. This topic was already brought up once, all the arguments that we have made already were discussed. No one's converting anyone, all we're now doing is going in circles. I'm not replying on this anymore, I've said enough, and I think we're all really starting to get sick of this thread. I'm asking that everyone else also stop, just for the sake of moving on to a better topic.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by Dumbass
This really has gone far enough. This topic was already brought up once, all the arguments that we have made already were discussed. No one's converting anyone, all we're now doing is going in circles. I'm not replying on this anymore, I've said enough, and I think we're all really starting to get sick of this thread. I'm asking that everyone else also stop, just for the sake of moving on to a better topic. Gee, I could have sworn I said the same thing about ten posts ago but you wouldn't let me just drop it.

[shade]

Shade, but a comatose person is already a person. A fertilized egg is not.
Final point, I agree this has gone on long enough:
If you define a human (of value) as an organism, consisting of human cells, with conscious thought and/or self awareness, then you deny that a comatose person is human. If you accept a comatose person as human, you then state that conscious thought and self awareness is not a factor, and also must acknowledge a zygote as a human with value. If you want to say that the comatose person's past "life" is what makes him the exception, I state that the zygotes future life is their exception. Zygotes are human life scientifically, and I believe the value placed on their life is equal to the potential for their future actions. This differentiates a zygote from say, bacteria.

I believe I summarised my points up pretty well, and I am now finished with this thread.

[Anti-Hero]

Originally posted by droogsteve
I'm pro-choice. I don't believe a first trimester fetus is a viable human life and don't like the idea of the government telling a woman what she can do with her body. If anyone disagreeing wants to try to convince me I'm wrong on this issue, don't bother using any religious arguments. I'm agnostic and you'd be wasting your time. IF it dont think like a human, then it aint human here here


EDIT: SOrry, didnt read the post saying this has gone far enough. whoops
:(

[shade]

Well, if you want you can continue to discuss... but please read all the above posts first to make sure you dont repeat something, and keep in mind that I (and probably dumbass and droog) wont be responding.

[droogsteve]

I agree, Shade. I'm done.