Unlike Shake or Stumbler I don't have the luxury of just "cutting and pasting" stuff from a site that agrees with me in order to present "proof" of what I'm saying.
Unlike those guys I have to find one that is completely impartial.
So I'm still looking for a source that I can use that will not be dismissed out of hand.
As soon as I can locate one I'll endeavor to post it here and thus stop the mouths of the gainsayers.

 

Yes you did and as myself and others have pointed out by the definition you gave abortion is not murder.

I suppose that's why you are now backing up and trying to change your terminology, but again your definitions and emphatic statements will not hold up to a logical test. There is strong scientific disagreement of when life begins and your statement that it begins at conception is merely your personal opinion. There is no doubt that if two humans are involved in the fertilization of an embryo that product will be human but since there is a surgical procedure involved this can hardly be reasonably called the "barbaric slaughter of an innocent human life." Again this is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but in matters of opinion it does not makes your correct.

These amount to three personal opinions and I guess I would have to disagree with all of them. Neither I, nor the laws of this nation consider abortion the slaughter of babies. And while the issue may be relevant to you at this point since abortion is legal it is actually a moot point. I think we have very much more pressing issues facing the world than abortion, things like nuclear weapons, global warming, wars to name just a few come to mind. Also I don't think abortion being legal makes us barbarians. Finally you obviously don't have respect for human life, as your previous posts demonstrate so this point is hypocritical.

This is an illogical statement and false at face value if for no other reason than you have know possible way of knowing any such thing. And speaking only for myself I'm pretty sure I would have been anti-slavery because after all that was a classic liberal cause.

This is what ShakeZula calls a strawman argument, but I will answer your question any way. Logically and reasonably there would be many advantages to keeping an innocent person locked up for life rather than killing them. The most important factor would be of course being an accessory to murder as opposed to false imprisonment. Secondly, as long as the individual is alive there is always a chance of correcting the mistake which can not be done with dead people. So yes I guess I do think locking someone innocent up for the rest of their life is regrettable but still much better than killing an innocent person. I would think that anyone who had respect for human life would think the same thing.

 

No argument is ever going to change another persons mind on this subject. And I honostly couldnt care how you feel about it. Seeing as though it is a PERSONAL issue, get the fuck out of another womans business. To me, being Pro-choice does not mean that if I get pregnant that im going to run out and suck the thing out. Pro choice means that you think woman should have the right to choose to do what they want to thier OWN BODY. If you dont want an abortion, then dont get one. If you dont want to have a gay marriage, then dont fucking get one.

Keep your laws off of my body and religion out of my government.

 

The baby in your womb isn't your body. It's another body with its own blood supply, blood type, etc.

 

Its in MY BODY. It lives off of MY BODY. It cannot survive if off of MY BODY before 24 weeks.

 

But it not right for you or anybody to tell what she can do what if she was rape

 

I don't see where myself or ShakeZula could possibly have any advantages here as far as cutting and posting sources go. I think you will have a very hard time finding credible scientific evidence however to prove your contention that human life begins at conception. Like I said that is a religious and philosophical contention and is abstract beyond scientific methods.

And JoeDirty you seem to contend that the sources we put up are not credible or impartial when if that was the case you could have very easily shown them to be such which you have never been able to do.

But good luck with you endeavor. I will be most impressed if you can find one but at this point I actually believe you are bluffing.

 

*ahem*

-S-

 

JoeDirty actually I think you need to calm down a little bit because it appears you are beginning to babble and make absolutely meaningless statementsl. Now just take a few deep breaths and try to relax because this post makes no logical sense at all.

 

I think this is very well said as well as being a completely reasonable and logical assessment which I wholeheartedly agree with.

This on the other hand is a completely illogical statement it would seem to be because the same can be said for cancerous tumors.

It would seem that this would be obvious enough that it would not have to said, but I fully understand why in this particular instance it does.

Again I agree that this is a reasonable and logical statement.

 

It's nothing but a parasite. Right?

A newborn baby can't survive without its mother (or an equivalent) either. A newborn baby lives off the body of its mother (breastfeeding...or its equivalent). A baby can't survive without its mother (or an equivalent) for a period that's much longer than 24 weeks.
Per your "logic" if a newborn baby isn't wanted then it's ok to stick a needle into its head and suck its brains out...or burn it to death with a saline solution...or take a knife and chop it into pieces.

 

"Per my logic" its not right for you to tell me what to do. Who the hell are you to tell me what I can or cannot do to myself? Whether or not you want to actually admit it, a baby does affect my life, my body, and my mind. So why should I not have a say in it?

 

Just wanted to point out this isn't true. In the 5th week of pregnancy, the nervous system is in place and is functioning by the 7th week.

 

JoeDirty, as I mentioned earlier, just try to slow down a little bit, I think you're becoming over wrought. You are actually trying to compare apples to oranges here in relevance what Rosebud had to say. New born babies can in fact live independently of their mothers while a fetus can not. That's what Rosebud was pointing out and she is correct.

You on the other hand are trying to twist what she said into some kind of overly emotional and fallacious argument which had nothing to do with what she said or her logic.

 

But if you abort it before that, then it is true. And even if it does have a nervous system, at 7 at best it's rudimentary. There was a study released a few years ago that fetuses did not feel pain. Of course this created a flurry of controversy as Christians scrambled to try and fund competing studies that would refute this.

-S-

 

I hope that's true.

 

Doesn't every being have the right to life regardless of their environment or circumstances? Do we simply have a life extinguished because the mother or father is somehow deemed " unfit "?

I fully support a woman's right to choose, they made the choice to spread their legs and have intercourse and golly! sometimes they get pregnant!
Now that they made that CHOICE they must now take RESPONSIBILITY.
Why must the child be denied their shot at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Everybody deserves their shot at life!

 

Obviously not, other wise we would not have capital punishment or wars.

No, that is against the law. The unsolved question, however, is what constitutes a life. And since that is debatable it is up to the individual woman to make the decisions over her own body and life.

This is not always true as has been pointed out on this thread. But even in the cases that it is true this is a gross oversimplification of the realities involved. That's why the issue of whether to have a baby is best left up to the individual woman.

No, I think you are actually advocating for taking their choices away from them and forcing a responsibility on them from your own personal and moral perspective.

And a child is one thing but a fetus is another so again you seem to want to be able to force your own moral view on everyone else when you have no way of knowing what their reasons, circumstances or feelings are. Not having an abortion might be a very good thing for you, but it does not mean it is the only choice that should be available.

 

And your moral view is that it is ok to kill a baby or " fetus " because now the mother must now take responsibility for her actions? Interesting and scary. Is society now becoming a place where if we have to take responsibility and own up to our actions and at least give a person the right to life, we simply just throw the garbage out and if you don't let me, then you are infringing on my right to destroy life for the sake of convenience?

 

My moral view is that it is up to each individual woman to decide what to do with her own body. Once a baby is born then it becomes an entirely different matter, but until then it is up to each individual woman whether on not she wants to have a baby.

I think you response is poorly stated, or at least I am not following it. But you seem to be moralizing over a woman's choice of whether or not to have sex and that each time she does it should carry some great moral responsibility. I think that's short sighted, and an oversimplification of the realities of life. And society is not now becoming anything when it comes to abortion which has been legal in this country and almost all other developed nations for decades. It is only the anit-abortion movement that refuses to accept this reality and pretends that it means doom and social disorder.

And who are you or I or anyone else to decide if an abortion is a simple matter of concvienence which is actually fine with me anyway because I don't feel I have the right to tell other people, especially women how to live their life any more than I want someone else telling me how to live my life.