One thing that has always puzzled me......

[Caine]

You feminists crack me up.....Keep telling yourself that a fetus is not a baby.........It will make you sleep better at night thinking you are not butchering innocent babies in the womb........One question for you though......Have you ever heard a woman say when she found out she was pregnant...I am having a fetus? I think not.......Its always I am having a baby...........

As far as answering the rest of your post.....try and make them concise......I am just and old farm boy and I don't like to read posts that are as long as a book...........thanks

More pointless emotional drivel

 

[nineplus]

As far as answering the rest of your post.....try and make them concise......I am just and old farm boy and I don't like to read posts that are as long as a book...........thanks

so let me get this straight, you really only started this thread to name call and boo hoo about your poor torn up (to the point of near inaction) heart?

you have no interest in actually discussing anything or even wasting your energy reading posts?

got it..........noted and logged

(I did my best to keep this post short enough for even your attention span and tried desperately not to use any big words)

 

[Stace]

Play nice, folks.

 

[doughgirl]

“Probably in your mind becasue you have no compassion for the unborn........Hopefully when Stace has her baby and you witness it and see the miracle of life you will change your mind......I doubt it though.......Sad........”

I totally agree Navy Pride…….and just to remind you we aren’t to bring "you know who" and her "you know what" into the conversation…….remember.

Did I miss something.........why is "you know who brought up in this anyway"?

Caine said….“What if this man's mother could have aborted him long before he turned into the sick freak he was? Usually bad seeds come from bad parents. Somebody wasn't prepared to be a parent, and this was the result of keeping it.”

No child should be aborted. Bad seeds come from bad parents……….lmao
Do you have any children? :rofl

Caine said, “Contradictory, the same people who believe that this is perfectly fine, believe that physician assisted suicide is wrong. Talk about hypocrits.”

Oh you’re right. I am against physician assisted suicide. I hold to a Christian worldview. You can categorize me all you want. And like I mentioned in another post…….we seem to fit into categories don’t we?

If I were a betting woman I would bet that you were…. pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide, anti-religion especially Christianity, a Democrat, and a LIBERAL. Am I right?

I asked this question in which you totally avoided……..”If you had a nursery full of babies and someone told you that one was born from a mother who had been raped……….do any of you think you could pick that child out?”

Would you or would you not be able to pick out the child whose mother was raped?

“Which only proves that you approve of using hateful slander to get your point across. Very professional of you.”

Its not hateful slander Caine……..it’s the truth. In your opinion I am sure …you don’t hold to absolutes..that there is no right or wrong. And if anyone has used colorful language here its you Caine. You used the term “hypocrite” to describe Navy Pride and myself. You called him emotional..What kind of language do you use?

Where do you get this pro-womans slavery term? Do you think the majority of woman who are carrying babies at this very minute consider themselves a slave?
For your information carrying a child is a blessing, it is an honor, a special honor that God gives woman. Do you have any idea what its like to carry a child?

To feel the life inside you move. To see the birth experience first hand. Have you ever seen or experienced a live birth Caine?

Every seen an ultrasound of a child?

Slave??????? You got to be kidding me.

“Yeah? My cat has a beating heart, and nobody gets pissed when people kill cats. A beating heart does not making something a viable independent human being with value to society.”

You compare a cat to a child in the womb? Does not surprise me one bit. You don’t have children yet do you Caine? I guess when your wife gets pregnant…….you wont value what she is carrying will you?
And I own a cat………….and I would be very upset if someone killed her. But as much as I love her….. she in no way equals a human being and the death of a human being.

“I am very pro-religion.”

Lmao I won't even go there.

This even gets better…..

NinePlus says, “Abortions do not kill.”

Boy did I bust out laughing when I heard that one.

You have got to be kidding. What do abortion do then? You tell me what happens when you stop a heart from beating? What happens when a woman who is carrying something inside of her whose heart is beating…….goes to a doctor who with his instruments scraps and dissects this “something” until the heart stops? And it comes out in pieces. What the hell is that called? Ballroom dancing? The doctor kills that “something” as you call it. KILLS. That is what he is getting PAID FOR..........TO STOP THE LIFE OF THAT"SOMETHING" INSIDE THE WOMAN.


Navy Pride asked....

“Have you ever heard a woman say when she found out she was pregnant...I am having a fetus? I think not.......Its always I am having a baby...........”

They won’t answer this one Navy. :rofl

Ever heard a woman say I'm having a fetus shower.........?
How are you and your fetus doing?
Now when is the fetus due?
My fetus is due..........next spring.

Yea right.

 

[Thinker]

One question for you though......Have you ever heard a woman say when she found out she was pregnant...I am having a fetus? I think not.......Its always I am having a baby...........

That's hardly relevant.

The statement is the same construction as used when, having been asked
"What are you doing next Saturday", someone replies "I am having a party".
It is understood that the party does not exist now and the statement was
short for "I'm going to have a party". Similarly, "I am having a baby" is short
for "I am going to have a baby". The statement is not suggesting that a baby
exists, only that one is developing.

The statement is also the result of people being lax with technical language,
as has been pointed out countless times here when posters confuse the
common and scientific meanings of the word "theory".

 

[Caine]

Do you have any children? :rofl

Do you have any idea what its like to carry a child?

Have you ever seen or experienced a live birth Caine?

Every seen an ultrasound of a child?

You don’t have children yet do you Caine? I guess when your wife gets pregnant…….you wont value what she is carrying will you?

I will answer all of these questions, only when you tell me how any of these questions are relevant to the issue of allowing those who wish to seek abortions the opportunity to do so.

If I were a betting woman I would bet that you were…. pro-abortion, pro-assisted suicide, anti-religion especially Christianity, a Democrat, and a LIBERAL. Am I right?

I am Pro-Choice, I am Pro-Assisted Suicide. I am Pro-Religion (althought am I against Religious influence on government, and definately against religious influence in legislation). For religion is between Man (or woman) and his (or her) God. I have absolutely no problem with Christianity. I had a Semi-christian upbringing (I went to church for a while, but we stopped going when I was like.. 6yrs old). I went to church all during my military training, even when others were out on pass hanigng out at the PX and the theater during AIT ("Job School"). I also went to services while I was in Iraq, when I could. I am a Democrat, and I am moderately left. But I have no clue the importance of this on the topic of abortion.

I asked this question in which you totally avoided……..”If you had a nursery full of babies and someone told you that one was born from a mother who had been raped……….do any of you think you could pick that child out?”

Would you or would you not be able to pick out the child whose mother was raped?

Nobody would be able to pick that child out. But no matter, I am not the one who said it is okay for rape victims to seek abortion, but not okay for others. That was NP, go attack him.

Its not hateful slander Caine……..it’s the truth. In your opinion I am sure …you don’t hold to absolutes..that there is no right or wrong. And if anyone has used colorful language here its you Caine. You used the term “hypocrite” to describe Navy Pride and myself. You called him emotional..What kind of language do you use?

No, its hateful Slander. Calling someone a Hypocrite when in fact they are one is not slander. Saying someone is "Pro-Abortion" (meaning, they go around advocating to women that they should get an abortion, whether they want thier child or not), is slander. You can agree that women should have the right to choose and still not agree that abortion would be something you would seek personally. It is not my job to tell other people to hold the same morals as mine, ESPECIALLY by doing it through legislation. The government already controls too many aspects of our personal lives that they have no business getting involved in. (Ever heard of the laws against Sodomy? What business is it of the government's if I want to have oral or anal sex with my wife? What business is it of the government what I do in my own bedroom? Also, some states have laws against pre-marital sex. What business is it of the government?)

Where do you get this pro-womans slavery term? Do you think the majority of woman who are carrying babies at this very minute consider themselves a slave?

For your information carrying a child is a blessing, it is an honor, a special honor that God gives woman.

No. I don't believe they think that. But you are advocating that women should not have the option of whether or not they want to be parents. Most pro-life people are also anti-birth control. It has nothing to do with how pregnant women feel, and everything to do with the position you wish to place women in our society.

To feel the life inside you move. To see the birth experience first hand.

What does this have to do with the debate of the legality of abortion? More emotional drivel.

You compare a cat to a child in the womb? Does not surprise me one bit.

And I own a cat………….and I would be very upset if someone killed her. But as much as I love her….. she in no way equals a human being and the death of a human being.

Personally. I would be more upset if someone killed my cats than if someone aborted thier own baby. Why do I compare a cat to a child in the womb? A child in the womb cannot, in no way, be compared to a full grown child. It is not an independent being. It does not act consciously in the womb.

You have got to be kidding. What do abortion do then? You tell me what happens when you stop a heart from beating?

You stop a physical muscle.

What happens when a woman who is carrying something inside of her whose heart is beating…….goes to a doctor who with his instruments scraps and dissects this “something” until the heart stops? And it comes out in pieces.

Well, for one your are trying to exaggerate a typical abortion with what is known as a "partial birth" abortion. Which are a small fraction of the total performed abortions every year. Your attempt at emotional persuasion is noted. But, as I do not agree with partial birth abortions, I will not answer this one, you'll have to wait for the guy who originally posted to answer this.

What the hell is that called? Ballroom dancing? The doctor kills that “something” as you call it. KILLS. That is what he is getting PAID FOR..........TO STOP THE LIFE OF THAT"SOMETHING" INSIDE THE WOMAN.

Your emotional anger is noted. It seems you can't even debate the legality of this issue without trying to throw attempted shame or guilt on those who disagree with you. Sorry, it doesn't work on me.

They won’t answer this one Navy. :rofl

Too easy, I'd be delighted to do so.

Ever heard a woman say I'm having a fetus shower.........?

No, because the shower is not for the fetus, but for the items that can only be used on a live baby.

How are you and your fetus doing?

People ask this question in optimism. They wish to know how the baby is doing, because this will be the product of the pregnancy if the mother is planning/capable of carrying it to term.

Now when is the fetus due?
My fetus is due..........next spring.

This is the most silly of them all. The finished product is not a fetus, but a baby, therefore, the fetus is never "due".

Yea right.

Exactly.

 

[doughgirl]

“That's hardly relevant.”

To whom?

It is to us………we want to hear your answer.

You guys will think of anything.


Caine, how have I said anything that slanders anyone?

“You stop a physical muscle.”

:rofl :rofl

And what is it called when ones stops this physical muscle Caine?
Is the “something” in the womb” alive or dead after this muscle has been stopped?

ALIVE OR DEAD? Just say it.........

“Well, for one your are trying to exaggerate a typical abortion with what is known as a "partial birth" abortion. Which are a small fraction of the total performed abortions every year. Your attempt at emotional persuasion is noted. But, as I do not agree with partial birth abortions, I will not answer this one, you'll have to wait for the guy who originally posted to answer this.”

No I am not. You have no clue to when the hearts starts beating do you? Go look at research then come back.

You brought up partial birth abortions………what happens when you stop their hearts in later stages?
Why do you separate the two? You said the “something” in the womb……..was not a child……..so you would be for partial birth abortion right? Its not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital right?


You said your against partial birth abortions?
Why?
Why enslave a woman to do what she doesn’t want to do…………free choice. By saying your not for it…….your taking her choice away. And since the heart is nothing.. only some little muscle wouldn’t make any difference now would it?

Oh I cant wait for this one.

“Your emotional anger is noted. It seems you can't even debate the legality of this issue without trying to throw attempted shame or guilt on those who disagree with you. Sorry, it doesn't work on me.”

Your using my emotion as a reason to avoid the topic the questions I put to you.

Your running……….cause I’ll debate until the cows come home. I’m going nowhere.

“No, because the shower is not for the fetus, but for the items that can only be used on a live baby….. People ask this question in optimism. They wish to know how the baby is doing, because this will be the product of the pregnancy if the mother is planning/capable of carrying it to term.”

:rofl I think you are in the minority on this one. I think the majority of people consider the unborn as a child in the womb, whether they are for abortion or against it. Even our courts in many decisions that have come down have called it a "child"

“This is the most silly of them all. The finished product is not a fetus, but a baby, therefore, the fetus is never "due".”

It’s not silly……

What do you call a “something in the womb” as you call it………that doctors take out and operate on and replace back in the womb where it stays until birth?

Is it a Fetus or a baby?

 

[Caine]

To whom?

It is to us………we want to hear your answer.

You guys will think of anything.

Again, those questions do not have ANYTHING to do with the debate. I refuse to answer them until you can show me how they are relevant to the debate other than just "I said so". Your debate style of avoiding answering my question and instead bringing up more irrelevant drivel is noted.

Caine, how have I said anything that slanders anyone?

Yes, you have called people babykilling abortionists who are not such. Not here, but elsewhere.

And what is it called when ones stops this physical muscle Caine?

Is the “something” in the womb” alive or dead after this muscle has been stopped?

My point was that the physical characteristics of a muscle do not make something human. You are too focused on the physical qualities. If I had a "baby" who sat sitting still with its heart beating and doing nothing else, it would not contribute anything to society, and thus, would not have the same and equal societal worth as a baby who can think/learn/and act consciously. That is what is important to me. And this is where our diferences lie.

ALIVE OR DEAD? Just say it.........

Dead. But its not killing a baby, its killing a fetus. Like the same thing as killing an egg as compared to killing a baby chicken.

No I am not. You have no clue to when the hearts starts beating do you? Go look at research then come back.

A heartbeat does not make something a viable human being.

You brought up partial birth abortions………what happens when you stop their hearts in later stages?

A heartbeat does not make something a viable human being.

Why do you separate the two? You said the “something” in the womb……..was not a child……..so you would be for partial birth abortion right? Its not a baby until you bring it home from the hospital right?

Where did I say this?

You said your against partial birth abortions?

Why?

Because at this point the mother has had sufficient time to decide whether or not she is prepared to be a mother. With that said, the second and most important reason is that, usually by this time, the fetus has had enough growth to where it is possible it could live outside of the mother, independently, and be a viable human being.

Why enslave a woman to do what she doesn’t want to do…………free choice. By saying your not for it…….your taking her choice away. And since the heart is nothing.. only some little muscle wouldn’t make any difference now would it?

By this point, her lack of action in getting an abortion was the way in which she expressed her "choice". At this point, the baby has enough sustained enough growth to qualify as a human being, as it is possible for it to live outside of the mother.

Your using my emotion as a reason to avoid the topic the questions I put to you.

Because your emotional questions have nothing to do with this debate. You are only attempting to get to someone's emotions and make them feel bad enough to agree with you. That is not how debate works.

Your running……….cause I’ll debate until the cows come home. I’m going nowhere.

Im not running, Im just not falling for your off topic debate de-railment tactic.

I think you are in the minority on this one. I think the majority of people consider the unborn as a child in the womb, whether they are for abortion or against it. Even our courts in many decisions that have come down have called it a "child"

Your missing the point. Those who want thier baby are going to call it such. Those who do not are also going to call it such (its what it is typically called). But, for debate purposes, we like to use the MEDICAL terms. Because abortion is a medical procedure, is it not?

It’s not silly……

It is VERY silly.

What do you call a “something in the womb” as you call it………

I call it that? Says who?

that doctors take out and operate on and replace back in the womb where it stays until birth?

I call it a fetus, cause thats the medical term, and when the doctors take it out to work on it and put it back in.. its a medical procedure, is it not?

Is it a Fetus or a baby?

Its a fetus. Cause its a being referenced in a medical procedure.

Your use of the word baby when speaking about a medical procedure again only shows your attempts at emotional persuasion.

 

[Navy Pride]

so let me get this straight, you really only started this thread to name call and boo hoo about your poor torn up (to the point of near inaction) heart?

you have no interest in actually discussing anything or even wasting your energy reading posts?

got it..........noted and logged

(I did my best to keep this post short enough for even your attention span and tried desperately not to use any big words)

Thank you.......

 

[doughgirl]

“Yes, you have called people babykilling abortionists who are not such. Not here, but elsewhere.”

I have never called anyone on this thread a babykilling abortionist?

You slander me by saying this. Who have I called personally a babykilling abortionist?

“Dead. But its not killing a baby, its killing a fetus. Like the same thing as killing an egg as compared to killing a baby chicken.”

Dead is right.

“A heartbeat does not make something a viable human being.”

One needs a heart to be viable right? A doctor takes that away when he kills the unborn.

Irregardless of that…….it is death to anything when their hearts stops.

“Because at this point the mother has had sufficient time to decide whether or not she is prepared to be a mother. With that said, the second and most important reason is that, usually by this time, the fetus has had enough growth to where it is possible it could live outside of the mother, independently, and be a viable human being”

:rofl Pickin and choosin eh?

You are taking her choice away because of your opinion as to when she had enough time to make up her mind. That is not being very tolerant is it?
What gives you the right to tell her, she can't abort her child for whatever the reason is?
You say you are pro-choice……….and your picking and choosing when and whose life should be saved. YOU TAKE HER CHOICE AWAY. What gives you that right? The fetus is NOT VIABLE………….REMEMBER. The heart doesn’t matter………..its only a little muscle. So she really wouldnt be doing anything wrong.....

You said the fetus was not viable……..now you say she cant abort? :rofl You say your pro-life.........yet you are for doctor assisted killing of the unborn.....

Make up your mind.

Its not whether your prepared its whether she is prepared. What gives you the right to tell her she cant take her time with the decision? It is HER CHOICE, YOU SAID IT. That is what being pro-choice is it? Or does it come with stipulations?

“Its a fetus. Cause its a being referenced in a medical procedure.”

You can use any term you want to describe the unborn in the womb……..it doesn’t change the fact that it is alive and at a certain time in gestation if delivered it would survive or die.

My neice was born at 21 ½ weeks. She survived. Abortions happen every day at that gestational age. Was she viable only after she was born? Fetus one second, baby the other?

Lets talk about pain to the unborn. You for sedation in late term abortions?

The Unborn Child Awareness Act

“U.S. congressmen have responded to the evidence of fetal pain by introducing the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act in 2004. The bill would require every abortionist to provide, whenever a woman seeks an abortion past 20 weeks after fertilization, specified information about the capacity of her unborn child to experience pain during the abortion. After receiving that information, the woman would sign a form either accepting or refusing the administration of pain-reducing drugs directly to the unborn child.”

What is this Act called? The Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act? Wow……I’m not alone am I? Child? Were all those who took a part in this bill…………emotional becasue they used the word child?

Are you at least for this bill that would require a physician to sedate the CHILD before the dismemberment took place?

Isn't it something that we are talking about giving something pain medicine before it is destroyed, dismembered? A child in the womb.......

Have you ever read what happens during a partial birth abortion?

Don't you find that sad?

 

[Caine]

You slander me by saying this. Who have I called personally a babykilling abortionist?

I believe it was Steen, back in the day.

One needs a heart to be viable right? A doctor takes that away when he kills the unborn.

But, its not the only thing that makes up humanity.

Irregardless of that…….it is death to anything when their hearts stops.

Exactly, anything. To include... cats for instance :2razz:

:rofl Pickin and choosin eh?

You are taking her choice away because of your opinion as to when she had enough time to make up her mind. That is not being very tolerant is it?
What gives you the right to tell her, she can't abort her child for whatever the reason is?
You say you are pro-choice……….and your picking and choosing when and whose life should be saved. YOU TAKE HER CHOICE AWAY. What gives you that right? The fetus is NOT VIABLE………….REMEMBER. The heart doesn’t matter………..its only a little muscle. So she really wouldnt be doing anything wrong.....

I do not agree with the abortion of a fetus past a certain part of the pregnancy. Due to the fact that the baby displays human mental/psychological characteristics. More specifically past the 7th month.

You said the fetus was not viable……..now you say she cant abort?

Where did I say this? Your putting words in my mouth now, Do you even know how to read accurately?

You say your pro-life.........

Where did I ever state that I was pro-life? Debating with you is futile because you refuse to read.

Make up your mind.

My mind has been made up. You have no reading comprehension skills.

Its not whether your prepared its whether she is prepared. What gives you the right to tell her she cant take her time with the decision? It is HER CHOICE, YOU SAID IT. That is what being pro-choice is it? Or does it come with stipulations?

Reading comprehension does work for children.. lets see something...

With that said, the second and most important reason is that, usually by this time, the fetus has had enough growth to where it is possible it could live outside of the mother, independently, and be a viable human being”

See.. If you would have read that you wouldn't be making these comments.

You can use any term you want to describe the unborn in the womb……..it doesn’t change the fact that it is alive and at a certain time in gestation if delivered it would survive or die.

Umm.. okay? Its not the term I use.. its the medical term.. :roll:

My neice was born at 21 ½ weeks.

Good for you.

Lets talk about pain to the unborn.

Which only the unborn know, but since they do not possess the full characteristics of a human, it doesn't matter. Only the unborn can tell you that, and they can't talk or even express themselves :2razz:

You for sedation in late term abortions?

Whats the point? They are going to die anyways, and they are not human yet.

Are you at least for this bill that would require a physician to sedate the CHILD before the dismemberment took place?

Whats the point?

Isn't it something that we are talking about giving something pain medicine before it is destroyed, dismembered? A child in the womb.......

Whats the point? Oh, and your continued use of descriptive emotional words is noted. Can't debate without them can you?

Have you ever read what happens during a partial birth abortion?

Yes, and I do not support them so why is this an issue in our debate?

Don't you find that sad?

I find this entire post of yours to be sad.

 

[The-Technocrat]

You Liberals try and make that baby non life.........I guess it makes you sleep better at night telling yourselfs the baby is a nothing.......If you ever came to your senses and realized that since 1972 and Roe V Wade 40,000,000 babies have been murdered in the womb it would probably drive you out of your mind....Probably not though because all your compassion is for murderers and rapists.....:roll:

Actually, we "Liberals" don't try to do that. Foremost, I only have vague associations with the American "liberal" parties. Secondly, your "rebuttal" and I use that word lightly, since you make no logical points whatsoever, was merely a fallacy-riddled diatribe in which you not only create a vast strawman of my argument, you generalize me with some nebulous group of which my argument is not associated. My argument is Utilitarian, not Liberal. I am not even a Liberal. I am a Technocrat. That option wasn't available.

1. No where in my post did I say a baby isn't alive. You simply dismiss the logical faults I point out in your argument and hit me with another illoigcal argument: this strawman.

2. It's also fallacious to attack me as you do above in place of a valid rebuttal. Not only do you appeal to my motivations, you generalize me. Try again--this time, pay attention to the logic of your rebuttal or don't bother trying. I put far more thought into one sentence than you have in your entire paragraph.

3. I don't give a **** about Roe v Wade. I don't base my ethics on court decisions or "liberal" political philosphy, since I am not really even a Liberal. Check your accusations at the door son.

 

[The-Technocrat]

I am not devaluing anyones life, if I could save them both I would. It is my opinion that you and everyone else who is for abortion devalue the life of evey unborn child because you support the slaughter of them as if they were nothing, worthless.

Yes, you are. I asked you which one you would save if you only had a chance to save one. You can save either a sentient being or a non-sentient one, and you choose to save the non-sentient one. Effectively, you chose to save something with no mind, no goals, no preferences for continued life, over a young woman--useful to society directly--. I gave you a chance to explain why, and you said, via my leading questions, that it's because they are both equal.

Now you are backpeddling. Do you wish for me to quote you? You anti-abortion advocates can't seem to argue logically for long before you start introducing these wildly inaccurate accusations and Ad hominems against people.

Do not turn this around and tell me I am devaluing life; that's a clever rhetorical strategy to shift attention from you to me when your back is up against a wall.

 

[The-Technocrat]

Well….what do you call the taking of a life without consent? Whatever you seem comfortable calling that in the womb………you forget one big thing. The heart is beating.

What I decide to call it is irrelevant--the name itself that is. What matters are the characteristic traits of the organism in the womb that give rise to these terminologies. According to the latest scientific data, we are fairly certain that, up to a point, the fetus is incapable of suffering, experiencing pain. It simply doesn't have the brain functioning or developed nervous system for this to be possible; is not a sentient organism. Sentience is important because awareness--what it is--is important. To feel pain and pleasure is a base criterion for moral consideration. It's wrong to cause pain for on reason to a dog or a cat or a human. Before a point, nothing you do to it can cause pain because it's got no consciousness. Even more importantly, it's not a sapient organism, as I explained, and even HIGHER moral consideration is given to sapient organisms.

2. On that note, a fetus does not have sapience. Thereore, it's not a person. What makes a human valuable as a person isn't simply being biologically alive. Your value can change depending on the quality of your mental state. A vegetable with zero mental faculties is not worth as much as a normal, healthy aware adult. Likewise, a dog is not as valuable as a human because it is not nearly as sapient. A human with no mental capabilites beyond that of a monkey is not truely a person. It's merely a biological unit with the, as if you are religious, soul ripped out. Imagine a human that has no brain functions beyond that which keeps the organs pumping. That's human only superficially.

Similarly, a fetus has no personhood characteristics. THis is objectively verifiable.

3. A non-sentient being cannot consent, so it's consent is not required. Saying "it cannot consent" is a rather specious argument anyway, since we engage in a great deal of perfectly ethical actions that don't involve the consent of organisms which are totally incapable of conseting. Secondly, the fact that it's heart is beating is, like I explained earlier, not an ethical factor. Many animals have hearts that beat. Many animals cannot consent to be killed as well. Neither factors into whether or not it is wrong or AS wrong to kill it. Your premises are TRUE, but irrelevant.

It has everything to do with ethics or there wouldn’t be the huge debate all over the world about this issue.

It is an ethical issue, but it's not important. They are minor or irrelevant things people look at. For example, it's also silly when Liberals try to use the "choice" argument or "viability" argument. Both are also of minor ethical importance to kill. What makes it WRONG to kill a human is that it's a person (it's more complex, but this post is getting too long to get into what that means).

So sad you feel that way. However to many people it does.

I couldn't care less how many people believe something. Numbers do not make a proposition true. Logical premises and data do. A billion people can believe in reincarnation. That doesn't make it any more valid than if 1 person believed something else.

Tell that to any woman who carries a child in their womb who feels their unborn move, kick and hick-up and roll around. Tell that to the mothers and fathers of unborns who have had corrective surgeries while in the womb. No life inside the woman? Tell that to a woman who has just lost the life she was carrying.

Appeal to Emotion doesn't constitute an argument. That it kicks and "feels" human doesn't make it wrong to kill. All of your examples are easily explained, but I seriously doubt you care or it would matter to you to do so. The latter one is especially striking that you mention, since if a woman feels bad about losing a future baby, it doesn't logically imply abortion is wrong. The fetus can and does have extrinsic value--that is, instrumental value for the mother. That's subjective, however and will varry.

How could Scott Peterson have been convicted on two counts of murder then? Laci was carrying another life inside her body.

Becaues the laws are stupid and often not based on scholarly evidence and academic ethics. Don't think that law = morality. I am glad Peterson got screwed, but I really do disagree with the ruling. He was wrong to kill the fetus of the mother because the mother prefered to have it. The fetus had instrumental value.

It's far worse that he killed the mother, since the mother was actually sapient AND sentient. Her life is of greater value than the fetus for reasons already explained. And yes, you are right. She was carrying a life inside of her. That's not an ethical argument clincher for reasons I hope I made clear and obvious: LIFE itself is not a valid argument against killing. Lots of things are alive; that doesn't logically imply as a conclusion you ought not kill. If you really felt that way, you would be against all killing; needless to say, you aren't. You are just cherry-picking imo.

If you watch to see what people post on this forum………they seem to fall into natural groups. Doesn't’t make a difference what topic you debate they do. You know what they will say about any issue before they say it. (me included) Their worldviews seem to be the same in what they believe. (politically, religiously etc) To make a valid observation here………the majority from my observations ….those who are pro-abortion, seem to be anti-religion as well……….and they are proud to call themselves LIBERALS.

Ok. Well, I don't really car what they think. I am not really a liberal. I am a Technocrat. My believes sometimes coincide with liberals, but my ethical philosophy is very different. I am not an advocate of Ethical Liberalism (first promoted by Rawls), Libertarianism. My ethics is distinctly Utilitarian blended with perhaps some aspects of Kantianeseque prima-facie deontology. Liberalism is actualy an ethical philosophy I don't agree with.


Now, I can go into greater detail about personhood from a Utilitarian perspective if you want. I can make a clear analogy that can help you understand what it means to be human, from a non-utilitarian position as well. Man is not merely "being alive." The social being--the human being--is merely the mind, which is a product of the interactions of neurons in the brain. Absent these, the "man" is merely a meatsack not warranting the same moral consideration.

 

[TheLady]

Yes, you are. I asked you which one you would save if you only had a chance to save one. You can save either a sentient being or a non-sentient one, and you choose to save the non-sentient one. Effectively, you chose to save something with no mind, no goals, no preferences for continued life, over a young woman--useful to society directly--. I gave you a chance to explain why, and you said, via my leading questions, that it's because they are both equal.

I clearly stated that the innocent 13 year old was equal to the innocent fetus, but that the 20 year old was not. to be sentient is to be aware, a fetus is most certaintly aware, that has been proven and to be aware the fetus must have a mind. where do you get your information?

Now you are backpeddling. Do you wish for me to quote you? You anti-abortion advocates can't seem to argue logically for long before you start introducing these wildly inaccurate accusations and Ad hominems against people.

please do.

Do not turn this around and tell me I am devaluing life; that's a clever rhetorical strategy to shift attention from you to me when your back is up against a wall.

I am up against no wall and you can keep the attention on me all you want, but in my opinion supporting abortion is devaluing life, because everytime an abortion happens a life is needlessly taken.

 

[The-Technocrat]

I clearly stated that the innocent 13 year old was equal to the innocent fetus, but that the 20 year old was not. to be sentient is to be aware, a fetus is most certaintly aware, that has been proven and to be aware the fetus must have a mind. where do you get your information?

I know what you said. However, the distinction you make between the 13 year old and the 20 year old is imaginary, and thus based on irrational demarcations. Look at this logically.

These are the variables:

A= The fetus
B= The 13 year old
C= The nurse

If A = B and B = C,
then A ===> C.

Verbally: If the 13 year old is equal to the fetus, then it follows that, given that all three are "innocent" as we claim in the hypothetical, the 20 year old should be equal to the fetus. As you can see, logically, saying the fetus and the 13 year old are equal in moral value, but more valuable than the 20 year old is an irrational belief. By allowing the 20 year old to die to save the fetus, you are devaluing the 20 year old's life. Even more damagingly, if the fetus really IS equal to the 13 year old, not even that helps your argument, since then you would have no qualms about choosing the 13 year old over the fetus.

That's rather unethical to equate them.

I am up against no wall and you can keep the attention on me all you want, but in my opinion supporting abortion is devaluing life, because everytime an abortion happens a life is needlessly taken.

I know it's your opinion, but it's not logically consistant nor is it founded on any firm ethical basis. In the above case, you said it was ok to take an action that would save a fetus (not sapient) but would kill a perfectly useful, healthy, "innocent" sapient life (the nurse). That's devaluing more important gradations of life. Deontologically, that's wrong.

 

[teacher]

One thing that has always puzzled me......


Where's my pants?

 

[TheLady]

I know what you said. However, the distinction you make between the 13 year old and the 20 year old is imaginary, and thus based on irrational demarcations. Look at this logically.

These are the variables:

A= The fetus
B= The 13 year old
C= The nurse

If A = B and B = C,
then A ===> C


Verbally: If the 13 year old is equal to the fetus, then it follows that, given that all three are "innocent" as we claim in the hypothetical, the 20 year old should be equal to the fetus. As you can see, logically, saying the fetus and the 13 year old are equal in moral value, but more valuable than the 20 year old is an irrational belief. By allowing the 20 year old to die to save the fetus, you are devaluing the 20 year old's life. Even more damagingly, if the fetus really IS equal to the 13 year old, not even that helps your argument, since then you would have no qualms about choosing the 13 year old over the fetus.

it is very unrealistic to say that the 20 year old is as innocent as a 13 year old and especially as innocent as a fetus. It is also unrealistic that in real life the 13 year old would be as innocent as the fetus.

That's rather unethical to equate them.

I do not think that you should be telling me was is and isnt ethical.


I know it's your opinion, but it's not logically consistant nor is it founded on any firm ethical basis. In the above case, you said it was ok to take an action that would save a fetus (not sapient) but would kill a perfectly useful, healthy, "innocent" sapient life (the nurse). That's devaluing more important gradations of life. Deontologically, that's wrong.

did you read my post? I said that a fetus IS sapient and wether saving the fetus is morally wrong or not, that is your opinion as is saying that the nurse is more important.

 

[The-Technocrat]

did you read my post? I said that a fetus IS sapient and wether saving the fetus is morally wrong or not, that is your opinion as is saying that the nurse is more important.

I guess you really don't get it. I can't explain this to you. A fetus isn't sapient. That's not even factually correct. Sapience means self-awareness. I didn't even see you say it was, but regardless, the lack of brain development precludes it. Sapience is a product of higher level brain functioning, which it doesn't have. Thus it's impossible.

Even if it were sapient, your assertion that it's the fetus and the 13 year old are morally equal, but the 20 year old and the 13/fetus are not, makes no sense. You claimed the 13 year old and the fetus are morally equal, but yet when it came to a 20 year old and a fetus, you would save a fetus. That makes no sense!

This is the problem with people who are against abortion; they make comments like the above: "a fetus is sapient." They don't know what they are talking about, yet they feel equipped to talk with people who do know what they are talking about. A fetus is as sapient as a terry-schivo vegetable.

My opinion is correct; the nurse is of greater moral value than the fetus both instrumentally as well as intrinsically. The nurse is sapient and sentient. On the former, the fetus is not. Only at a point does it eventually become sentient even. THe nurse is highly beneficial in addition to being a person; the fetus, individually, likely isn't.

 

[teacher]

My opinion is correct;

Fine. But have you seen my pants?

 

[Iriemon]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Liberals have no compassion for the innocent defenseless baby in the womb when it comes to abortion but when it comes to the death penalty and a person who has raped, mutilated and murdered they have all the compassion in the world........

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Conservatives have no compassion about providing health care and education and foster care and housing and food stamps for poor kids that need as they want to get rid of all these types of programs, yet claim they have compassion for babies as a reason for forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and may be financially unable to support.

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

 

[Stace]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Conservatives have no compassion about providing health care and education and foster care and housing and food stamps for poor kids that need as they want to get rid of all these types of programs, yet claim they have compassion for babies as a reason for forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and may be financially unable to support.

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

I do.

But the standard reply is always going to be that she could give it up for adoption, ignoring the fact that she'd still have to have health care during the pregnancy.....

 

[Iriemon]

I do.

But the standard reply is always going to be that she could give it up for adoption, ignoring the fact that she'd still have to have health care during the pregnancy.....

According to this source, on any given day there are over 100,000 kids in the foster care system (which of course conservatives don't want to fund) hoping to get adopted.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/411254_foster_care_adoption.pdf

What would have been the case if another 40 million unwanted babies had been born?

 

[Stace]

According to this source, on any given day there are over 100,000 kids in the foster care system (which of course conservatives don't want to fund) hoping to get adopted.

http://www.urban.org/uploadedPDF/411254_foster_care_adoption.pdf

What would have been the case if another 40 million unwanted babies had been born?

Why, they would have been snatched right up if they had been placed in the system right away, because don't you know, everyone waiting to adopt just wants a newborn, they don't want to deal with the "problems" of older children.

 

[Navy Pride]

One thing that has always puzzled me is how Conservatives have no compassion about providing health care and education and foster care and housing and food stamps for poor kids that need as they want to get rid of all these types of programs, yet claim they have compassion for babies as a reason for forcing a woman to have a child she does not want and may be financially unable to support.

Does anyone but me see a hypocrite there?

What a smoke screen, 2 completely diferent issues......I know of no Conservative who is against legitimate welfare claims.......

As far as health care goes why should I pay for your health care because your to damn lazy to pay for your own......

Like I said there are organizations out there like Catholic Charities that will take are of the finacial end for any woman who is willing to carry her baby to term instead of using abortion as a means of birth control

Try again.........