Life begins at conception...

[1Perry]

Nonsense. Such as..?

See, nonsense. Try again. And this time with a thoughtful response.

You said you were once pro-life but no longer are. Just because you no longer hold this view says absolutely nothing about the millions that do.

Millions of hypocrites is more like it. Believe me, you know very little of these people's personal lives. What people say and what they do are rarely ever the same.

Yes and you being so much more insightful than everyone else is, knows it all. Please, the elitist attitude is boring and complely dismissable.

 

[Alyssa]

You said you were once pro-life but no longer are.

Yes, but that is the result of insight and wisdom rather than rigid, black and white thinking. It has nothing to do with my character.

Just because you no longer hold this view says absolutely nothing about the millions that do.

Millions do hold to that view, but what most of them deny is that there are situations in which they would want the option of abortion. Shouldn't that be between them and their doctors?

Yes and you being so much more insightful than everyone else is, knows it all. Please, the elitist attitude is boring and complely dismissable.

Nothing I have said even remotely points to elitism. Try to be a bit more original. I find your attitude of moral superiority to be arrogant and willfully ignorant of a complex reality. Also, it is presumptuous and not based on logical facts. This whimsical idea of the sacredness of human life is based on religious dogma. It has absolutely no place in public policy.

 

[1Perry]

Yes, but that is the result of insight and wisdom rather than rigid, black and white thinking. It has nothing to do with my character.

Here again. It's not your character but if one disagree's with you it's because they have a character flaw.

Millions do hold to that view, but what most of them deny is that there are situations in which they would want the option of abortion. Shouldn't that be between them and their doctors?

You have absolutely no idea what they would want. None, zilch, nada.

Nothing I have said even remotely points to elitism. Try to be a bit more original. I find your attitude of moral superiority to be arrogant and willfully ignorant of a complex reality. Also, it is presumptuous and not based on logical facts. This whimsical idea of the sacredness of human life is based on religious dogma. It has absolutely no place in public policy.

I'm not the one pretending to know what others want. Life is the ultimate form of liberty.

 

[mac]

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned, a cat has more rights than a day-old fetus.

In fact, they DO have more protections than a day old fetus.

Whether true or not, it has nothing to do with any of your reasoning, and only shows just how screwed up the pro-choice mindset is.

 

[mac]

if it was specifically illegal to drive drunk or smoke weed while pregnant, there would be a specific law saying so.

if driving drunk while pregnant AND driving drunk while not pregnant, brings the same charge, then its not specifically illegal to drive drunk while pregnant, and no additional charges are filed against a pregnant drunk driver.

however, driving drunk while having a child in the car, WILL bring more charges.

game...set..match.

This is a complete lack of logic and reason.

 

[prometeus]

You have absolutely no idea what they would want. None, zilch, nada.

But on the other hand you wish to decide what they MUST.
Why not let everyone make their own decisions?

I'm not the one pretending to know what others want.

But you are attempting to impose on everyone what you want.

Life is the ultimate form of liberty.

No, freedom is the ultimate freedom and without it life is meaningless.

 

[1Perry]

But on the other hand you wish to decide what they MUST.
Why not let everyone make their own decisions?

We involve ourselves into the decisions of others every single day.

But you are attempting to impose on everyone what you want.

I've never argued for making illegal. My beliefs are more complicated than that. In many cases, yes. In many other cases it's never going to happen so there is no use to argue it.

No, freedom is the ultimate freedom and without it life is meaningless.

And yet, there are countless things I am not free to do. (you either)

 

[majora$$hole]

What I am supposed to do is pay taxes and die. Other than that, I must do nothing.

I have explained in more detail the differences, so now, I am content with a short summary. But, in short....the obvious part that you miss is that the fetal brain starts developing very early, much earlier than can be measured, the corpses brain has ceased to function, and that can be measured. So, even if your fantasy law were put in place, it would not be possible to enact it since the means to measure fetal brain activity do not exist. Further, you have been completely unable to describe what brain activity is necessary to fulfill your law. At best, a brain which is developing in the fetal stage is functioning properly, so by your own definition, should set the limit as early as three weeks.

you may have to repost those "more detailed differences" i can't seem to find them or remember reading them. and accually i did describe what will fulfill my view. being how you said we can't measure brain function in a fetus then i would say it's when there is a brain there to function would be a good point then. i really don't care if it's three weeks or the first trimester brain function should be the milepost because it is the same one for the exact opposite condition. MY fantasy is far closer to the current law than YOUR fantasy, so there.

 

[majora$$hole]

Tell that the Terri Schiavo family..


Tim-

terri schiavo was in a "vegitative state" which is FAR different than legally "dead". what that situation really boiled down to imo was: who do you want making these decisions for you when you can't make them yourself ie: the person you dedicated your life to, your family/parents, your doctor, the court, or the president of the united states. and in the case of terri schiavo i think the decision that was made (the husband) was the right choice.
nice try though hicup.

 

[majora$$hole]

What's the real truth?

I think that it doesn’t matter that a fetus doesn’t have brain activity. It’s still alive. I really wish this part of the argument would get settled. It really doesn’t make any sense to argue about life. The fetus, be it two cells small, or almost completely formed, is alive, is human, and is a person. Like it or not.

But the left stupidly keep this argument alive with their silliness. Honestly, they’re like children who stamp their little feet and refuse to budge. What’s so important about having abortion anyway? What’s behind this push of theirs? And please don’t tell me that it’s because they’re defending a woman’s right to control her own body. I want the real truth. What is so important about abortion?

And to those who are comparing a fetus to an acorn…give it up. It’s making you look bad, and it’s a really stupid argument. Acorns? Really?

that is not what the law says like it or not.

 

[majora$$hole]

Why would you need to go to court? Are you trying to be clever?

It's alive even at two cells, it's human, and it's a person even at the earliest stage

Why do you need a judge to tell you that a baby is alive when everybody (even you) knows that it is alive?

because our country runs on laws.

 

[majora$$hole]

First, why do the rights of the adult woman supersede the rights of the unborn fetus, in your mind?



What level of brain activity should be present to count as "life"? Does that only apply to humans? What level of brain activity is required to count other creatures as alive?



In what cases where rights come into conflict is one of the parties allowed to decide the outcome for themselves in a civilized society?



abortion isn't a right, it is sanctioned killing perceived by the supreme court to be allowable under the right to privacy.

plants are alive and they have no brain so yes it only applies to humans and their laws.

 

[majora$$hole]

It doesn't matter what the supposed distinction was, Africans were perceived to be other than human, less than human, and even genetically inferior by whites throughout the long history to equality. Obviously this is false, so whatever the distinction...it was false.

so if you replaced the word africans with homosexuals would you feel the same way.

 

[majora$$hole]

I think you've already decided which side you're on and you're relying on the courts to keep the abortion law on the books.

But what I want to know is why you support abortion. Oh, sure. I know the usual "talking point" reasons usually given.

But what I want to find out is what does the left have to gain by having abortion available?

Why?

i am far from the left but will try to answer your question even though you didn't answer mine. i think they want them available in such cases that an abortion is needed, if you make them illegal then the woman who is going to die if she dosen't get one will die if they are illegal. also if your wife or daughter was raped and got pregnant wouldn't you want abortion made available to them?

 

[majora$$hole]

The reason you depend on the court is you want abortion to stay in the books. We care because abortion kills human lives. But why do you care?

i care about the woman who NEEDS the procedure.

 

[1Perry]

i am far from the left but will try to answer your question even though you didn't answer mine. i think they want them available in such cases that an abortion is needed, if you make them illegal then the woman who is going to die if she dosen't get one will die if they are illegal. also if your wife or daughter was raped and got pregnant wouldn't you want abortion made available to them?

Hyperbole. There has never been a restriction on abortions to save the life of the mother. Even when they were illegal they were legal for this reason.

 

[majora$$hole]

A "little girl" on abortion doesn't know anything about the subject and has no way of understanding what she is parroting. PARROTING what she has heard, too bad she hasn't been exposed to other opinions and been allowed to actually THINK!

or been raped.

 

[majora$$hole]

I agree with the point that murder is simply a legal definition. I stated so very early on, but there is plenty of other misleading hyperbolic hysterics going on here. Such as trying to interject Zygots into an abortion thread.

It is also a definition irrelevant to this discussion. Really, trying to use one's birthday (day you were born) is another example. As noted deifferent cultures use different timelines for ones age. There are many who try and argue that there is no life to even be discussing. A complete falsehood. The only discussion is whether or not that life is deserving of a legal protection.

and that legal protection needs to be based on the law, that has already been determined, for the exact opposite condition imo.

 

[majora$$hole]

Hyperbole. There has never been a restriction on abortions to save the life of the mother. Even when they were illegal they were legal for this reason.

not true before r.v.w.

 

[mac]

so if you replaced the word africans with homosexuals would you feel the same way.

Who percieves homosexuals as anything other than human? Your question is sensless.

 

[mac]

you may have to repost those "more detailed differences" i can't seem to find them or remember reading them. and accually i did describe what will fulfill my view. being how you said we can't measure brain function in a fetus then i would say it's when there is a brain there to function would be a good point then. i really don't care if it's three weeks or the first trimester brain function should be the milepost because it is the same one for the exact opposite condition. MY fantasy is far closer to the current law than YOUR fantasy, so there.

What you also can't do is provide a clear answer on "What is brain function?"

 

[majora$$hole]

What you also can't do is provide a clear answer on "What is brain function?"

sure i can it's that stuff the eeg machine is measuring.

 

[majora$$hole]

Who percieves homosexuals as anything other than human? Your question is sensless.

this whole line of debate is sensless for nowhere in the law defining the opposite condition of life is there the word african.

 

[majora$$hole]

No they aren't, but the entity created through human reproduction is actually human.

but is it a living human according to the law?

 

[Thunder]

clearly, the law makes a distinction between a viable human being, and a proto-human in the womb.....totally dependent on its mother for oxygen and food.