Why Am I Pro-Life

[americanwoman]

I used to be pro choice before because as a woman I thought it was the right thing to stand up for womens rights. Then as I grew up I noticed how some women use abortion as birth control. It's disgusting. I have become pro life because it just seems wrong to have an abortion. No matter if you believe it's a fetus or baby it still will never have the chance to live like it would have had it been born.
But I do not judge anyone for what they stand up for. It's not up to me to say right or wrong. I have stood by all of my friends that chose to have an abortion because as I said I do not judge them or lecture them. I quietly disagree and maybe try to educate them on birth control or adoption.

 

[Navy Pride]

Uhh, I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro=choice. And I don't have to tell myself anything, as there is no "baby" in the womb, and it is just a clump of cells. Boy, you pro-lifer's sure let this dishonesty go to your head.:lol:



It's not a human being Stop being dishonest.



Well, if pro-abortion people are "wrong" as you so aptly put it, I'm sure you won't mind posting actual scientific facts about when life begins, Einstein?



Abortion does not meet the moral or even legal defintion of murder:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-abortion.htm



You're being less than honest here. First, make it known that there is a god, or else please stop lying.

Keep telling yourself that and sleep well tonight my friend, 10 killings in the womb will take place while I type this post......

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

This is a rather swift dismissal of several valid arguments on the pro-choice side that I feel deserve a little more consideration than being simply deemed "asinine".

On what basis, then, do you say that [read: sentient] life begins at conception? If you cannot prove this premise, than your entire argument falls apart as abortion would not be the destruction of a sentient being, it would simply be the destruction of non-sentient life or something that is not alive at all.

Life begins at conception.

Conception is the point where the sperm rapes the egg to form a single cell with the complete genetic package. Since a single bacterium is one cell with the complete genetic package, it's asinine to claim that a fertilized human egg is not equally alive.

You added the word "sentient", I did not. If you want to pour gasoline on your strawman please record it and post the video. Using LOX makes it more exciting. But don't think it refutes what I said.

 

[Engimo]

Life begins at conception.

Conception is the point where the sperm rapes the egg to form a single cell with the complete genetic package. Since a single bacterium is one cell with the complete genetic package, it's asinine to claim that a fertilized human egg is not equally alive.

You added the word "sentient", I did not. If you want to pour gasoline on your strawman please record it and post the video. Using LOX makes it more exciting. But don't think it refutes what I said.

I'm sorry, but I would say that a fetus (up until a certain point) is most certainly not alive, and if it is, it is not sentient.

The scientific definition of life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

Now, when a fetus is composed only of a couple hundred cells, it cannot do any of those things - until it can, science says that it is not alive.

More importantly, though, is the sentience of the fetus. When it is only a small conglomerate of cells, it clearly does not have a brain or any higher thinking capacity, and therefore is non-sentient. How, then, is destroying a fetus any different than killing a rabbit or any other "lower" life-form? The only difference is that a fetus has the potential to become sentient, which I feel is irrelevant in the consideration of its present state.

It's not a straw man, it's a relevant question and a relevant point.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

It's not a human being

What is it, then? A cow? A sea horse? Oh, you said "vegetable". If the parents are Eye-talians, is it a zucchini?

I define a human being as a complete life form at any stage of development that contains a complete human genome, and for generosity, I also include those defects such as Down's Syndrome sufferers and Al Gore.

Well, if pro-abortion people are "wrong" as you so aptly put it, I'm sure you won't mind posting actual scientific facts about when life begins, Einstein?

Prove that life doesn't begin at conception. You're arguing against simple biology, so this should be entertaining.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'm sorry, but I would say that a fetus (up until a certain point) is most certainly not alive, and if it is, it is not sentient.

You adding "sentient", again?

The scientific definition of life: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism."

Now, when a fetus is composed only of a couple hundred cells, it cannot do any of those things - until it can, science says that it is not alive.

It's not 'growing'? My, my. How does it get so big, then?

It's not metabolizing nutrients into cell structure? How does it turn into two cells, then a 1024?

It's not reproducing? Then again, you're not reproduing every second either. Perhaps you're not alive?

It's not responding to stimuli? Sure it is. Once it attaches to the uterine wall, it's plenty stimulated by the nutrients found there. And that's also an adaption to its environment.

[/quote]More importantly, though, is the sentience of the fetus.[/quote]

Totally unimportant is the present sentience of any human when discussing whether to kill it or not. Most important is the expected future of that sentience.

When it is only a small conglomerate of cells, it clearly does not have a brain or any higher thinking capacity, and therefore is non-sentient. How, then, is destroying a fetus any different than killing a rabbit or any other "lower" life-form?

Because its a human being. And humans aren't allowed to kill one another without just cause.

The only difference is that a fetus has the potential to become sentient, which I feel is irrelevant in the consideration of its present state.

Well, try to extricate your feelings from the discussion and learn to let your reason guide you. The most important difference is that potential you so easily dismiss.

It's not a straw man, it's a relevant question and a relevant point.

If you use gasoline with that LOX you can create new levels of excitement for your friends. I've found that anti-freeze makes really pretty green flames, though. Don't be afraid to experiment.

 

[Engimo]

Well, try to extricate your feelings from the discussion and learn to let your reason guide you. The most important difference is that potential you so easily dismiss.

The potential is not important. A sperm has the potential to become a fetus if combined with an egg, does it not? Because a fetus has, as you say, a potential to become sentient, a sperm thus has the potential to become sentient. Destroying sperm is therefore destroying the potential human being in the same way that you claim destroying a fetus is.

Discussing potential is nonsensical, we need to concern ourselves with what the fetus is, not what it might become (which is entirely contingent upon the healthiness of the mother).

If you use gasoline with that LOX you can create new levels of excitement for your friends. I've found that anti-freeze makes really pretty green flames, though. Don't be afraid to experiment.

You're hilarious.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

The potential is not important. A sperm has the potential to become a fetus if combined with an egg, does it not? Because a fetus has, as you say, a potential to become sentient, a sperm thus has the potential to become sentient. Destroying sperm is therefore destroying the potential human being in the same way that you claim destroying a fetus is.

A sperm is not a living thing, it's a robot. An egg also, isn't "alive", it's a target.

Discussing potential is nonsensical, we need to concern ourselves with what the fetus is, not what it might become (which is entirely contingent upon the healthiness of the mother).

Yes, the fetus is a human being. Thank you.

You're hilarious.

I do my best. Watch for my show on Comedy Central.

 

[kal-el]

What is it, then? A cow? A sea horse? Oh, you said "vegetable". If the parents are Eye-talians, is it a zucchini?

Well, like I sid on another thread, it has human DNA, but that doesn't automatically grant it it's own set of rights here.

I define a human being as a complete life form at any stage of development that contains a complete human genome, and for generosity,

I care little about opinions, and more about facts. So, either produce facts that state when exactly life begins, or else stop posting your opinions as facts, ok.

I also include those defects such as Down's Syndrome sufferers and Al Gore.

Huh? Totally irrelevant to this topic.

Prove that life doesn't begin at conception. You're arguing against simple biology, so this should be entertaining.

Uhh, I don't have to. Last time I checked this thread ws called, "Why I am Pro-Life, so the author of it is making the assertion that life begins at conception, therefore he carries the burden of proof, he's obligated to prove it, not I. I don't argue against biology, where did you come up with that conclusion?

 

[kal-el]

Keep telling yourself that and sleep well tonight my friend, 10 killings in the womb will take place while I type this post......

Ha, I find it quite funny how pro-lifer's seem so concerned about pre-natal life, yet they love pushing the death penalty. If pre-natal life is this important, then why isn't post-natal?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, like I sid on another thread, it has human DNA, but that doesn't automatically grant it it's own set of rights here.

I never discuss rights. I discuss the absence of rights. The mother doesn't have the right to kill.

I care little about opinions, and more about facts. So, either produce facts that state when exactly life begins, or else stop posting your opinions as facts, ok.

The statement that life begins at conception is a fact. It's pretty exact, too.

Huh? Totally irrelevant to this topic.

No, I consider those with genetic deviations from the human norm to be human. I'm quite the generous person. That was merely a loophole plugging statement to prevent some wag from asking me if I considered them human. Ignore it if you wish.

Uhh, I don't have to. Last time I checked this thread ws called, "Why I am Pro-Life, so the author of it is making the assertion that life begins at conception, therefore he carries the burden of proof, he's obligated to prove it, not I. I don't argue against biology, where did you come up with that conclusion?

I would be interested in an honest representation of beliefs in this poll.....as I wish to understand the "Why".

The title of the poll doesn't include the claim that life begins at conception, you're forcing the assertion on the author, then demanding proof for it.

But regardless, not only does a fertilized egg meet all the requirements for a living thing, it's the logical starting point. Claiming that life starts at some significant time past conception is weird, defies logic, and requires evidence and defense.

 

[earthworm]

/me takes the microphone away from Doughgirl and motions to security......

I hate these nasty little remarks from the pro-death crowd.
And I would take it and hand it back to the Doughgirl as I agree with her 100%..
Life indeed begins at conception, as does the potential, this may go on for several days; once the connection is complete, we have life, a human being.

I can see why the pro-death crowd disputes this; no-one wishes to murder another human; so they just rationalize this to a totally ridiculous extent..
But nothing can alter this, it is a life and and a human being...

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Ha, I find it quite funny how pro-lifer's seem so concerned about pre-natal life, yet they love pushing the death penalty. If pre-natal life is this important, then why isn't post-natal?

People enjoying the experience of capital punishment have made a personal choice to put themselves in that spot.

Embryos have no choices.

That's why.

 

[kal-el]

I never discuss rights. I discuss the absence of rights. The mother doesn't have the right to kill.

Uhh, her rights surpass those of the fetus. If the fetus poses physical harm to her, or her life is in danger, abortion is a morally recognized alternative. If you say it's not moral, then why the hell is it legal???? Or would you rather have them both perish, as per stupid religious taboos?

The statement that life begins at conception is a fact. It's pretty exact, too.

I beg to differ. If A has the potential to become B, it is not, therefore it is utterly irrelevant whether a fetus has the potential to become a person, as it isn't at the said time. That's a false claim. You mean it's a fact that pro-lifer's believe that, it's not a scientific fact. You're not being completely honest here.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

No, I consider those with genetic deviations from the human norm to be human. I'm quite the generous person. That was merely a loophole plugging statement to prevent some wag from asking me if I considered them human. Ignore it if you wish.

I don't know what exactly it is you're getting at here. Are you falsely equating Al Gore to a person with Down's Syndrome? You don't make logical sense. But I expect that from someone who makes the claim, without any proof, that god dosen't exist.

People enjoying the experience of capital punishment have made a personal choice to put themselves in that spot.

O, I see now. You deserve to get done what's done to you, ok. Dude, we aren't living in the OT times, ok.

Embryos have no choices.

No ****. They cannot think, feel, or show any emotion. Good one Einstein.:lol:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Uhh, her rights surpass those of the fetus. If the fetus poses physical harm to her, or her life is in danger, abortion is a morally recognized alternative. If you say it's not moral, then why the hell is it legal???? Or would you rather have them both perish, as per stupid religious taboos?

Oh, Christ, don't confuse morality with legality. You're not that dumb and I know it. Did I not say that one may exercise violence when violence is threatened against one? If I haven't said it here, I've said it enough times on other threads.

Of course if we're discussing an ectopic pregnancy, for example, the only choice is to abort. But there ain't twenty million life-threatening abortions every year in this country. There's likely less than one million, though now I admit I'm farting on the elevator on this one.

I beg to differ. If A has the potential to become B, it is not, therefore it is utterly irrelevant whether a fetus has the potential to become a person, as it isn't at the said time. That's a false claim. You mean it's a fact that pro-lifer's believe that, it's not a scientific fact. You're not being completely honest here.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-personhood.htm

No, it's a fact that life starts with conception. We're not even talking about "personhood" here, we're talking about at what stage in the growth cycle does a thing become "living". If you're claiming that something is alive only after it attains 100 cells, for example, how did it manage to grow from 1 to 99?

Doctor Suess said it best. A person is a person, no matter how small.

I'm not god, I don't judge a person's value based on how many cells he has or if they're immersed in amniotic fluid or not.

I don't know what exactly it is you're getting at here. Are you falsely equating Al Gore to a person with Down's Syndrome? You don't make logical sense. But I expect that from someone who makes the claim, without any proof, that god dosen't exist.

I merely laid a false trail of confusion to see if someone would take the bait and follow it, to annoy potential pro-deathers with equating their iconic flip-flopper with a retard.

I have proof there's no god, because I have no proof there is one. Is that relevant to this thread, or are you trying to lay your own trail of non-sequiturs to escape an untenable position?

O, I see now. You deserve to get done what's done to you, ok. Dude, we aren't living in the OT times, ok.

Actually, it's they deserve to have done to themselves what they've done, but close enough. In a free market people are expected to pay prices for their activities. If the people decide that the price for murder is execution, so be it. There's nothing inherently immoral about that.

No ****. They cannot think, feel, or show any emotion. Good one Einstein.:lol:

And you wondered why I mentioned Al Bore.

 

[Engimo]

A sperm is not a living thing, it's a robot. An egg also, isn't "alive", it's a target.

I don't know, you can interpret the criteria for life to fit a sperm in the same way that you did for a fetus.

 

[kal-el]

Oh, Christ, don't confuse morality with legality.

I'm not, but if I were to, you pro-lifer's would definetly be on the losing side of the argument.:lol:

You're not that dumb and I know it.

Thanks, I think.

Did I not say that one may exercise violence when violence is threatened against one? If I haven't said it here, I've said it enough times on other threads.

I don't know, my life doesn't center around your posts.

Of course if we're discussing an ectopic pregnancy, for example, the only choice is to abort.

Actually, if the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed early, it usually be treated with an injection of methotrexate, which dissolves the fertilized egg and allows your body to reabsorb it. It is a total nonsurgical approach.

But there ain't twenty million life-threatening abortions every year in this country.

I believe you are correct.

No, it's a fact that life starts with conception.

Blatant falsehood. How come then In Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized abortion, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that when those trained in the respective fields of medicine, philosophy and theology,can't arrive at the decision, who are they to decide?

We're not even talking about "personhood" here, we're talking about at what stage in the growth cycle does a thing become "living". If you're claiming that something is alive only after it attains 100 cells, for example, how did it manage to grow from 1 to 99?

Because that's the only thing a cell knows how to do, multiply; reproduce. Nothing more, nothing else.

Doctor Suess said it best. A person is a person, no matter how small.

Does this "Dr. Suess" hold a seat on the Supreme Court? No, he's a character in a child's book. I might be wrong here, but I highly doubt people in medicine, theology, or philosophy, will consult Dr. Suess on his morals.:lol:

I'm not god,

Keen observation.

I don't judge a person's value based on how many cells he has or if they're immersed in amniotic fluid or not.

Well hows about if they can either think or feel? An embryo has no sexual differentian, no buds for teeth, no vocal cords, no digestive or nervous system, no kidneys, or no arms or legs. Basically, an embryo even before it becomes a fetus, is just a lump of cells inside a cocoon, which cannot think.

I merely laid a false trail of confusion to see if someone would take the bait and follow it, to annoy potential pro-deathers with equating their iconic flip-flopper with a retard.

Is Al Gore mentally retarded? I think not, so please retract that false claim, thanks.

I have proof there's no god, because I have no proof there is one.

Really? So you're saying cause there's no proof for Santa, that equals proof of his non-existence? You're not making complete sense here. Do you have either physical or material proof of his non-existence. I doubt it, cause if you said you did, you would be lying.

Is that relevant to this thread, or are you trying to lay your own trail of non-sequiturs to escape an untenable position?

Well, you were the one who opened the door in this discussion to the sky pixie, I was simply asking for proof.

Actually, it's they deserve to have done to themselves what they've done, but close enough.

Yea, you know what I meant.:lol:

In a free market people are expected to pay prices for their activities.

Nothing gets by you.:lol:

If the people decide that the price for murder is execution, so be it. There's nothing inherently immoral about that.

How can we let the govenment execute it's own people? And that's your opinion.

 

[Stace]

doughgirl, I refuse to actually debate your post directed at me. Why?

a) You are once again trying to make it out like I said something that I really didn't.

b) You have tried to insult me, or at least I presume that was your intent. Sorry, but it didn't work. I had to laugh.

c) You are once again trying to appeal to emotions, and I've already stated that that is not the route to take with me in this issue.

d) Those scenarios you presented have NOTHING to do with what I said.

e) You constantly try to educate people on your side of things, which is fine. However, the manner in which you go about it, in my opinion at least, is all wrong. Like aps said, the lecturing and condescending nature in your posts will do little to sway any minds.

Treat others as you want to be treated when posting. That's the moral of the story. You're likely to have a much more productive debate.

 

[doughgirl]

aps says, "Is this kind of post supposed to teach me something? I am pro-choice, and when I read angry and nasty statements like you have written, it is a total turn-off to me, and I won't even read the entire post. doughgirl, if you want to educate people the way you were educated, write in an educational manner. People will want to read through your post and you may make some reconsider their position on this. The lecturing and the condescension ain't gonna work. In fact, it probably will cause people to only confirm their beliefs about pro-lifers."

What is nasty about what I have written? And steen and the others write such sweet and gentle responses to pro-lifers? ha ha

And do tell us what is confirmed in your opinion about pro-lifers? That they want to protect life? That they value life? Is that so bad?

And what is confirmed about those who are pro-abortion?


The topic of this thread was a question...............why are we pro-life. It was started so people could talk about their feelings and explain why they are pro-life. To you it might be a one word explanation.....to others they might elaborate a bit more.

No one is making you read posts. You are pro-choice/abortion so of course you would find what I or any other pro-lifer would say to be false. So? You probably are not looking to change your view so it wouldn't matter what evidence anyone who is pro-life would share, it wouldn't be good enough for you.

I could care less if you read my posts. Most the questions I probably would ask... you couldn't answer anyway.

 

[aps]

aps says, "Is this kind of post supposed to teach me something? I am pro-choice, and when I read angry and nasty statements like you have written, it is a total turn-off to me, and I won't even read the entire post. doughgirl, if you want to educate people the way you were educated, write in an educational manner. People will want to read through your post and you may make some reconsider their position on this. The lecturing and the condescension ain't gonna work. In fact, it probably will cause people to only confirm their beliefs about pro-lifers."

What is nasty about what I have written? And steen and the others write such sweet and gentle responses to pro-lifers? ha ha

And do tell us what is confirmed in your opinion about pro-lifers? That they want to protect life? That they value life? Is that so bad?

And what is confirmed about those who are pro-abortion?


The topic of this thread was a question...............why are we pro-life. It was started so people could talk about their feelings and explain why they are pro-life. To you it might be a one word explanation.....to others they might elaborate a bit more.

No one is making you read posts. You are pro-choice/abortion so of course you would find what I or any other pro-lifer would say to be false. So? You probably are not looking to change your view so it wouldn't matter what evidence anyone who is pro-life would share, it wouldn't be good enough for you.

I could care less if you read my posts. Most the questions I probably would ask... you couldn't answer anyway.

Oh, excuse me please. I didn't realize with whom I was dealing. :roll:

By the way (see bold above), it's that you could NOT care less if I read your posts. Please use the proper terminology in the future. :lol:

 

[doughgirl]

I gave this scenario............."Two woman become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both woman decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why would woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B's action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder?"


ka-el said in response......
"Because woman A already gave birth, hence it is a human."

So let me get this straight. A woman is laying on the operating table getting ready to give birth. Before birth it isnt human, but after birth it is? ha ha :rofl :rofl :rofl

"I would say woman B shouldn't abort cause obviously she's way too far along, and the fetus has already developed human traits, i.e. teeth laid down, digestive system operates, vocal chords, etc."

Did you read my post. Reread it. Both are the same developmentally. ONE LIVES and SURVIVES. The other is still in the womb. The teeth are the same........the traits are the same. What dont you get?

"Pro-choice is all about choice, it doesn't necessarily matter what the choice is, ok? "

It does matter because in abortion you are taking the life of something that is human and living. Are you pro-choice rape? pro-choice stealing? pro-choice incest?

"First degree murder would be alot different than simply aborting a fetus, as it isn't developed, it's a vegetable."

No they are the same. Both children were 6 month in the womb. One is born is delivered. How do you know the other is a vegetable? :rofl

You pro-death crowd as earthworn describes you.........can't answer this one can you?

 

[Engimo]

I gave this scenario............."Two woman become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both woman decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why would woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B's action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder?"


ka-el said in response......
"Because woman A already gave birth, hence it is a human."

So let me get this straight. A woman is laying on the operating table getting ready to give birth. Before birth it isnt human, but after birth it is? ha ha :rofl :rofl :rofl

"I would say woman B shouldn't abort cause obviously she's way too far along, and the fetus has already developed human traits, i.e. teeth laid down, digestive system operates, vocal chords, etc."

Did you read my post. Reread it. Both are the same developmentally. ONE LIVES and SURVIVES. The other is still in the womb. The teeth are the same........the traits are the same. What dont you get?

"Pro-choice is all about choice, it doesn't necessarily matter what the choice is, ok? "

It does matter because in abortion you are taking the life of something that is human and living. Are you pro-choice rape? pro-choice stealing? pro-choice incest?

"First degree murder would be alot different than simply aborting a fetus, as it isn't developed, it's a vegetable."

No they are the same. Both children were 6 month in the womb. One is born is delivered. How do you know the other is a vegetable? :rofl

You pro-death crowd as earthworn describes you.........can't answer this one can you?

Er... Well, most pro-choice advocates are not going to be pushing for an abortion at 6 months into the pregnancy - the beginning of the 3rd trimester. Late-term abortions are something that I, as well as many pro-choice people, are against. In the situation you described, I don't believe that either of them should be allowed to abort/kill the fetuses in question.

3rd trimester abortions are totally different than 1st or 2nd trimester abortions, as the fetus has developed beyond simply a conglomerate of cells and has higher brain function/other organs.

 

[kal-el]

I gave this scenario............."Two woman become pregnant on the same day. Six months later Woman A has a premature baby, small but healthy. Woman B is still pregnant. One week later both woman decide they don't want their babies anymore. Why would woman B be allowed to kill her baby and Woman A not be allowed to kill hers? Since there is no difference in the nature or development of the two babies, why would Woman B's action be exercising a legitimate right to choose, while Woman A's action would be a heinous crime subjecting her to prosecution for first degree murder?"


ka-el said in response......
"Because woman A already gave birth, hence it is a human."

So let me get this straight. A woman is laying on the operating table getting ready to give birth. Before birth it isnt human, but after birth it is? ha ha :rofl :rofl :rofl

I didn't say that ignoramus. Please don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't make you look educated. I said in laymen's terms that since woman A already gave birth, if she would kill her offspring, it would be murder, and it would/wouldn't be murder for woman B, depending on how far along she is. Get it.

"I would say woman B shouldn't abort cause obviously she's way too far along, and the fetus has already developed human traits, i.e. teeth laid down, digestive system operates, vocal chords, etc."

Did you read my post. Reread it. Both are the same developmentally. ONE LIVES and SURVIVES.
The other is still in the womb. The teeth are the same........the traits are the same. What dont you get?

If she is past 3 months, 12 weeks, (the beginning of the fetal period) I would say it is murder, but before that, the fetus is nothing but a parasite who depends on it's host to live. So I'd say if something is a dependent parasite who posess no faculties, the host should be able to make the decision, not a mass of cells.

"Pro-choice is all about choice, it doesn't necessarily matter what the choice is, ok? "

It does matter because in abortion you are taking the life of something that is human and living. Are you pro-choice rape? pro-choice stealing? pro-choice incest?

Umm, are we talking about entity's that have attained personhood murdered? For the last time, the fetus dosen't have moral status, rights, it's not living.

"First degree murder would be alot different than simply aborting a fetus, as it isn't developed, it's a vegetable."

No they are the same. Both children were 6 month in the womb. One is born is delivered. How do you know the other is a vegetable? :rofl

Well then if it is 6 months old, I would say no, it is a living individual.

You pro-death crowd as earthworn describes you.........can't answer this one can you?

Huh? Who's earthworn? What are you talking about?

 

[doughgirl]

Engimo…You said, “3rd trimester abortions are totally different than 1st or 2nd trimester abortions, as the fetus has developed beyond simply a conglomerate of cells and has higher brain function/other organs.”

Please tell us what is different.

How do you determine what the cut off lines are with abortion? Remember you are dealing with a life and death of an unborn child. I would think you would have to right on the money, and GUESS IT PERFECTLY 100% when you could abort. Does any doctor know really with 100% certainty when this would be?
When is the exact moment when as you say it, life begins in the womb? Please enlighten us to when that really is.

Did you happen to know that… that” conglomerate of cells” as you so put it…..clumps itself together during the first trimester so that a heart beats. Fantastic isn’t it? For just a hunk of cells to form a heart and start beating.



Kal-el said, “I didn't say that ignoramus. Please don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't make you look educated. I said in laymen's terms that since woman A already gave birth, if she would kill her offspring, it would be murder, and it would/wouldn't be murder for woman B, depending on how far along she is. Get it.”


Oh here come the names now………

This is what you said[/B],” Because woman A already gave birth, hence it is a human.”

And I asked you………..Does just giving birth make a child human? Ridiculous.

I was pregnant along with my girlfriend. We happened to both be due the same week. Her child was born first, two weeks ahead of mine. I was late. Your telling me hers was human and mine wasn’t?

And you call me the ignoramous? :doh

You said, “If she is past 3 months, 12 weeks, (the beginning of the fetal period) I would say it is murder, but before that, the fetus is nothing but a parasite who depends on it's host to live. So I'd say if something is a dependent parasite who posess no faculties, the host should be able to make the decision, not a mass of cells.”


Is this opinion? Is this fact? An educated guess? What? The fetus you say is a parasite can do many things. Do you have any clue to what it can do? Obviously not.

May I enlighten you.

http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml
8 weeks
The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

10 weeks

The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. Twenty tiny baby teeth are forming in the gums.

12 weeks

Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

http://www.amomstouch.com/firsttridevelopment.htm

The Second Month (weeks 8 to 12)
The fetus will weigh ½ to 1 ounce and be about 2 inches long by the end of this month. The baby has a beating heart. The kidneys, stomach and liver are starting to form. The skin, cartilage and muscles are developing. The baby’s fingers and toes are developing and the baby even has fingernails! The babies organs are forming. The ears, nose, mouth and eyes are continuing to take shape and this is a critical time for the development of the structures for vision and hearing. The umbilical cord is also starting to form.


The Third Month of Development
The fetus will be about 3 inches long and ¼ pound by the end of this month. The umbilical cord is functional and circulating blood between the fetus and the placenta.The baby’s sex can be identified by ultrasound. The arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are completely formed. Although the mother will not feel the movement because of the fetus’ small size, the baby is starting to move and kick. The baby’s head is significantly larger than the rest of the body. The fetus can move its neck. The vocal cords are formed and taste buds are developing on the tongue. Hair is beginning to cover the baby’s body.

You said, “Umm, are we talking about entity's that have attained personhood murdered? For the last time, the fetus dosen't have moral status, rights, it's not living.”

Unbelieveable that you think if a heart is beating in a body that it is dead. Unbelieveable. Wow :roll:

In Illinois, a pregnant woman who takes an illegal drug can be persecuted for delivering a controlled substance to a minor.
Did you know that it is illegal to execute a pregnant woman in our country? In 1974, the U.S. Congress voted unanimously to delay capital punishment of a pregnant woman until after the delivery of the baby to spare its life.
I bet you are wondering why, since she carries a dead baby anyway. Oops that is before you said the cut off date was ..when was it?…..Hmmmmmmm 3 months? 3 ½? 3 1/4? What was it? Oh do refresh our memories.

http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/legality1.shtml

 

[kal-el]

Kal-el said, “I didn't say that ignoramus. Please don't put words in my mouth. It doesn't make you look educated. I said in laymen's terms that since woman A already gave birth, if she would kill her offspring, it would be murder, and it would/wouldn't be murder for woman B, depending on how far along she is. Get it.”


Oh here come the names now………

This is what you said[/B],” Because woman A already gave birth, hence it is a human.”

And I asked you………..Does just giving birth make a child human? Ridiculous.

Of course not, but as a fetus, it is not afforded any rights. Please show me in the Constitution where it states that the fetus has any rights, if it did indeed say this, Roe vs. Wade would be overturned in a heartbeat!

I was pregnant along with my girlfriend.

Congrats!

We happened to both be due the same week. Her child was born first, two weeks ahead of mine. I was late. Your telling me hers was human and mine wasn’t?

Of course not, but her's did have court-given rights, you'rs didn't. Sorry. That late along I'd say, yes it is a human.

And you call me the ignoramous?

Ok, hows about a mental derelect who constantly spouts off deceptive claims, and blatant falsehoods.:lol:

You said, “If she is past 3 months, 12 weeks, (the beginning of the fetal period) I would say it is murder, but before that, the fetus is nothing but a parasite who depends on it's host to live. So I'd say if something is a dependent parasite who posess no faculties, the host should be able to make the decision, not a mass of cells.”


Is this opinion? Is this fact? An educated guess? What? The fetus you say is a parasite can do many things. Do you have any clue to what it can do? Obviously not.

May I enlighten you.

http://www.wprc.org/trimester1.phtml
8 weeks
The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

10 weeks

The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. Twenty tiny baby teeth are forming in the gums.

12 weeks

Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

http://www.amomstouch.com/firsttridevelopment.htm

The Second Month (weeks 8 to 12)
The fetus will weigh ½ to 1 ounce and be about 2 inches long by the end of this month. The baby has a beating heart. The kidneys, stomach and liver are starting to form. The skin, cartilage and muscles are developing. The baby’s fingers and toes are developing and the baby even has fingernails! The babies organs are forming. The ears, nose, mouth and eyes are continuing to take shape and this is a critical time for the development of the structures for vision and hearing. The umbilical cord is also starting to form.


The Third Month of Development
The fetus will be about 3 inches long and ¼ pound by the end of this month. The umbilical cord is functional and circulating blood between the fetus and the placenta.The baby’s sex can be identified by ultrasound. The arms, hands, fingers, legs, feet and toes are completely formed. Although the mother will not feel the movement because of the fetus’ small size, the baby is starting to move and kick. The baby’s head is significantly larger than the rest of the body. The fetus can move its neck. The vocal cords are formed and taste buds are developing on the tongue. Hair is beginning to cover the baby’s body.

Nice diatribe there. It would be all dandy if it weren't a pro-life-leaning site. Let me take a quote from your "source":

We, therefore, do not refer for or recommend an abortion.

So, by their own admission, they are against abortion.:lol: Once again, the pro-lifer's are well adept at dishonesty.:lol:

You said, “Umm, are we talking about entity's that have attained personhood murdered? For the last time, the fetus dosen't have moral status, rights, it's not living.”


Unbelieveable that you think if a heart is beating in a body that it is dead. Unbelieveable. Wow

A heartbeat is just a reaction to the uterus contracting, nothing to get all up in arms about.