Abortion II: The Reckoning Revenge! IN CINEMASCOPE!

[Ray Jones]

Yes, the world was round then, or the world did not exist, in which case the question is moot.

It is not, because, the world that not is, is not round.

 

Actually, the night sky IS blue, just a very dark blue that the stars shine through. You'll notice it's not black if you look very closely.

Question, how do you look at the sky very closely? Then, actually, when there is no light shining through the air, it is black, because, no light, no color. PLUS, with like tons of red shining stars out there, I doubt those will produce blue light ever.

 

Also, failing to use context to determine what I'm referring to is simply being a pain, it's not clever or amusing in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't matter that Mar's sky isn't blue, because I wasn't referring to Mars.

"The sky is blue" stands to context in Earth how?

 

Alright, you go to the sun. When the flesh runs off your bones like wax, lights on fire, turns to ash, and is then sucked into the gravity well and becomes raw carbon within the sun, we'll talk again.

Actually my atomic parts would be fused to iron, but on the other hand, who said something about going to the sun?

 

Again, ignoring context. When I say Blood is Red, It's readily apparent that I'm referring to healthy human blood.

Is it? It is not. Could be whale blood as well.

 

I said eventually. And staring directly.

last week I stared into the sun for 1 second. Directly. Nothing.

 

Yes, it is. Because when it's not beating, it means someone is dead or close to it.

A not beating heart is in no way important to the dead person.

 

Name one part of the brain that is completely non-functional.

Why? Lobotomy takes always care of the same part of the brain being cut. Now if that part wasn't functional because of whatever reasons, accident, intoxication, brain tumor, it won't change a bit.

 

 

*feels the cold steel of Niner's gun on his neck*

 

<_<;;;;

 

ON TO THE TOPIC AT HAND:

 

 

Firstly, who would argue that a human fetus is not human?

 

Plus, what we have here in this thread is comparison with murder of who knows what - underage, adult, very old, ill, handicapped, disabled, 6 million dollar man and untermenschen people. We got discussion about rights and whatnot. Why is that even relevant to the topic of abortion? All those kinds of humans have already breathed more or less fresh air, fetuses have not. "Comparison" ended.

 

Then there are attempts to declare a fetus as non-living whatever thing, aiming towards that something non-living cannot be killed.

??? Of course, abortion *does* kill life. At least the life of the cells making up the fetus. But again, why is that relevant?

 

Last but not least there is the issue about the person/non-person status due to beating hearts and working brains or lack thereof. All philosophic and linguistic poppycock. Humans are persons from the begin with. Fertilised cell - fetus - baby - child - adult - old - bug yum yum, that's the way they go. Of course, there are differences between them. In age, size, growing rate, personality, abilities, experience. This was also brought up in this thread, but with a rather incomplete train of thought behind it.

 

However, we cannot separate those attributes. The difference is not just that a fetus is usually smaller than an adult. Or that they have less abilities, or that they are inside a womb. The difference between a fetus and a child is *all that*. A fetus cannot speak, walk, grows at different rate, is way smaller, eats different etc. All this is directly tied to but one attribute: age. And according to a persons age we can make certain whether a human is fetus, child, or grown up.

 

Also, the "purpose" or "main focus" of a human person changes with their age, something like children learn, adults work, old teach. I realise there are no clear lines between those things, but while one may never stop learning, the rate at which he is doing so decreases with increasing age. So at the end of the day, it pretty much is like this. Does that mean something? -- It does. It means, that with increasing age, the importance of one human regarding the forthcome of the whole species is changing. Simple example, the older humans are the more risky are their pregnancies, up to the point where old people can't create offspring anymore. While that *does not* mean that old are useless in any way, it simply means that children are more important to the forthcome of species than adults are, even if they are not yet sexual mature. Another point is that children (from a certain age on), despite a definite lack of experience, knowledge, or even strength, have good chances to survive, even if there are no elderly humans to help them out, also due to the fact that a certain level of knowledge and strength comes on its own.

 

What does that mean concerning the unborn fetus? -- Obviously that the unborn fetus offers almost *zero* possibility to make the human species survive on its own. Means, despite being the ultimate essence of surviving of human life, it is utterly use-/helpless on its own. This also means, that it makes no sense to protect that unborn life before all born life under all circumstances. Thus protecting the unborn fetus causing the mother to die makes no sense, even more, it means risking that this mother organism will never be able to add anything regarding human offspring (like caring for her other baby, etc), and thus it is a risk to the whole forthcome of humanity.

 

Okay, turtle eggs? Turtle eggs usually never see their mother again, their "content" *is supposed* to survive on its own, this cannot compared to a human fertilised egg.

 

It simply is illogical to say that the unborn human life has to be treated the same way born life is. There are so many differences, it seems impossible from whatever perspective.

 

Hm. Now what is abortion anyway? It is not a contraceptive, nor murder, nor the invention of irresponsible teens who just want to **** their brains out of their behinds.

 

It is but one thing: termination of a pregnancy on purpose.

 

Nature does that all the time. Most women trying to get pregnant have at least one miscarriage without even noticing it because they simply have their "time of the month" or it's like one of those months where they are overdue a couple of days. Then there are all kinds of pregnancies that end who knows when up to the point where the babies die during the birth. What "reasons" might nature have for those "natural abortions"? Even more, what reasons might nature have for animals that kill their own or other's offspring?

 

So is it right to end a pregnancy for whatever reasons, even for nature?

 

Where is the difference, when a raped woman miscarriages due to the stress or even her injuries even if she wanted the child, or if she actively decides to end that pregnancy?

 

Where is the difference between the miscarriage of the 50 year old married woman who "accidentally" got pregnant, or her possible decision to not risk her or the babies health/life due to being too old for a "no risk pregnancy"?

 

At the end of the day, the only difference is one decision is made consciously the other unconsciously.

[Corinthian]

I've had enough of this. If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, I'm just going to ignore you.

[Achilles]

The babies are living beings.

Indeed they are. Abortion deals with embryos and fetuses though.

 

One thing no scientist seems to take into equation is this: Where does the soul come from?

Science cannot take into account that for which there is no evidence. In other words: please provide evidence for this "soul".

 

We are killing living beings.

Only after a certain point in gestation. Existing laws ensure that this is only done with good reason. Prior to that point however, we are not.

 

The abortion rate may be dropping, very slowly, but just how many more deaths will it take before abortioners finally admit their wrongdoing? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion?

And if what they are doing isn't "wrong"? Doesn't seem that there would be much to "admit" in that case, does there?

 

Science is not the answer to everything.

The process of finding answers is not an answer? Okay.

 

You can't put sentient life, a soul, into a equation. It exists, but you don't know how it works.

Since you appear to know quite a bit about "souls", perhaps you can answer some questions for me:

 

At what point does the soul enter the body?

In those rare instances in which a zygote splits and becomes twins, does that soul split as well? Is each twin born with half a soul? Or is a second soul provided? Who provides it and which twin gets it?

In those rare instances in which one or more fertilized egg is absorbed, is the resulting chimera born with two souls? If not what happens to the second soul?

If the soul enters the body after the point when zygotes can split or fuse, would abortion be "immoral" prior to that point?

 

I look forward to reading your answers.

 

It is murder, and things like this should be treated morally.

Indeed it should. Hence why is pleases me greatly to know that we already have existing laws for abortions that take place after the fetus is unequivocally a living thing.

 

Take care.

[Totenkopf]

Only after a certain point in gestation. Existing laws ensure that this is only done with good reason. Prior to that point however, we are not....Indeed it should. Hence why is pleases me greatly to know that we already have existing laws for abortions that take place after the fetus is unequivocally a living thing.

 

It might help if you can provide a clear definition of "living". I was unaware that the fetus was apparently a necrotic mass of tissue. At what arbitrary point are you supporting the notion that a fetus morphs magically from living tissue into a "being"? Is a child in the third trimester a "living being" or is that only conveniently conditional for you as well?

[Web Rider]

It might help if you can provide a clear definition of "living". I was unaware that the fetus was apparently a necrotic mass of tissue. At what arbitrary point are you supporting the notion that a fetus morphs magically from living tissue into a "being"? Is a child in the third trimester a "living being" or is that only conveniently conditional for you as well?

 

"living" tissue and a "living" being are not the same thing.

[Arcesious]

We are the only sentient species we know of. Why isn't any other species sentient? Why has the human race remained the only sentient species? What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does. Every other animal species theoretically can have th epotential to evolve to a sentient, level, but none have. When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct. Advanced survival instincts is not what made us humans sentient. is must have been soemthing more. We can;'t explain it, but what about people who have had otu of body experiences, or near death experiences, where many people have claimed that very odd things have happened to them? how do we explain that? do we flag them as trying to get attention and just makign things up, or are most of them really telling the truth? What would cause this, except for a soul, a spirit beyond their physical body? What about shows like ghost hunters? Thigns like this shouldn't be dismissed as false, but shoudl taken into account. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real. To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. We should not ignore and flag as false that which we do not understand. The soul is one of those things. And even a single fertilized ovule is humanity, whether it be sentient or not, it (he or she) is a form of life, a form of life that shoudl be allowed to grow, and becoem a complete human being, and gain intelligence. Who are we to dictate who can and can't live? for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci!

We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach. No person should have the right to decide if soemone unborn lives or dies, after all that person could turn out to be the next mozart or einstein if we let them live!

We must allow living beings that can become human beings if they were allowed to live to reach the potential they rightly deserve!

[Web Rider]

We are the only sentient species we know of. Why isn't any other species sentient? Why has the human race remained the only sentient species? What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does.

 

Can it? I'd say yes. Does it? I don't know. I'm not familiar with all the info on the current embodiment of The Theory of Evolution. Could it in the future? Possibly. Science is about getting the answers, not about having them NOW.

 

Every other animal species theoretically can have th epotential to evolve to a sentient, level, but none have.

Says the arrogant human being. If nothing else, humans are naturally arrogant, can you go out to a cow and tell me it's not sentient? How did you determine that? Or did you read a science book that says so?

 

When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct. Advanced survival instincts is not what made us humans sentient. is must have been soemthing more.

prove it.

 

We can;'t explain it, but what about people who have had otu of body experiences, or near death experiences, where many people have claimed that very odd things have happened to them?

The mind is very powerful. There, I explained it in a non-psudeo-religious way. Am I right? Maybe. Am I wrong? maybe. I have no proof either way.

 

how do we explain that? do we flag them as trying to get attention and just makign things up, or are most of them really telling the truth? What would cause this, except for a soul, a spirit beyond their physical body? What about shows like ghost hunters? Thigns like this shouldn't be dismissed as false, but shoudl taken into account. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real.

Not understanding something means we have proof of it's existance. I don't understand the purpose of the duck-billed platipus. But we have proof it exists, so I don't deny that.

 

To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. We should not ignore and flag as false that which we do not understand. The soul is one of those things.

Lack of proof of existance is not the same as not understanding.

If I don't understand your position, I do not deny it's existance. If you do not argue a position, and then claim I don't understand you, it is because there's no proof you made an argument.

 

And even a single fertilized ovule is humanity, whether it be sentient or not, it (he or she) is a form of life, a form of life that shoudl be allowed to grow, and becoem a complete human being, and gain intelligence. Who are we to dictate who can and can't live? for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci!

WHAT IF! WHAT IF!! WHAT IF!!!

The world is not built on "what if", "what if" is a logical fallacy. In short, it means arguing on the basis of "what if!" makes you wrong.

 

We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach. No person should have the right to decide if soemone unborn lives or dies, after all that person could turn out to be the next mozart or einstein if we let them live!

We must allow living beings that can become human beings if they were allowed to live to reach the potential they rightly deserve!

Why? Other than saying this unborn child might be the next Hitler, the next Stalin, or the next BinLaden, you made no argument as to WHY they should be allowed to live.

 

Your argument can be summed up as follows: "The Unborn are alive and have souls and they could be great people so they should live."

[Arcesious]

I repeat: We have no right to decide whether or not a living being capable of human sentience and great potential lives or dies. It's inhumane to do so, and we shoudl be ashamed of all these abortions.

[Totenkopf]

Why? Other than saying this unborn child might be the next Hitler, the next Stalin, or the next BinLaden, you made no argument as to WHY they should be allowed to live.

 

Existentially, b/c they exist. Pretty much the reason you'd grant someone who just left (or perhaps is now ready to leave) the "birthing canal".

[Achilles]

We are the only sentient species we know of.

Really?

 

What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does.

Sure it can. Are you saying that intelligence, morality, language, and "much more" would not demonstrate a competitive advantage in social animals?

 

When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct.

Really? Please expand upon this.

 

Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real.

Neither does that mean that it is real. It just means that it's possible. And the degree to which we accept or reject an idea should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence that we have for our arguments. Without evidence for a "soul" it is not reasonable to accept that such a thing exists.

 

To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities.

To say something like invisible pink unicorns are not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. Should we all blindly accept the existence of invisible pink unicorns also?

 

for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci! We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach.

Every fertile egg that is purged from the female body each month is a potential "einstein, mozart, or da vinci". Every moment that a woman spends doing something other than trying to conceive is another chance wasted. Should we argue that doing anything other than trying to get preggers is immoral too?

 

Do you feel the same way when you consider that every embryo aborted could be the next Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot?

[Web Rider]

I repeat: We have no right to decide whether or not a living being capable of human sentience and great potential lives or dies. It's inhumane to do so, and we shoudl be ashamed of all these abortions.

 

Then why are you OK with the meat industry? We have no proof that one of these cows may develop sentience, we have evidence that it is highly unlikely, but no proof that it is impossible. In fact, they could be sentient and we just aren't measuring it right.

 

Existentially, b/c they exist. Pretty much the reason you'd grant someone who just left (or perhaps is now ready to leave) the "birthing canal".

The same reason I suppose, but existance does not stop us from killing in war, killing animals, or breaking rocks. Rocks exist. Why is it OK to destroy them? Oil exists, why is it OK to burn it? That sounds rather painful to me.

[Arcesious]

I see your point, but with a poiny liek that, you're only sayign we shoudl stop killing everything. Oil and rocks are not living things. they have no living matter in which to think. But with animals, I see your point. Humanity was given dominance over most of the animals by a superior level of senience, and adaptability, such as having apposeable thumbs... We require the meat of the animals to live, and we he no proof that they are or aren't sentient, except that our brains are more complex than any other animal's brain, and able to carry out more complex equations. If cows are sentient, oh well, but accordign to the law of nature, the strong must prey on the weak. But in the case of our own kind, we need to protect those of our kind who are weak and unable to speak for themselves, such as our young. It is natural for a species to try to preserve itself from extinction, as mentioned in the Way the world dies thread, and we are defying nature by murdering our own kind. the strong may prey over the weak, but the strogn of the same species must also protect the weak of their same species, usually. There are a few exceptions to this in the animal kingdom, but the biggest thing is that we must look after and protect the lives of our own young, which deserve to live. Frankly I don't care if cows or squirrels or whales or whatever are sentient, I only really care for my own species' welfare, and that is natural. We must protect the lives of our own unborn kind.

[Totenkopf]

The same reason I suppose, but existance does not stop us from killing in war, killing animals, or breaking rocks. Rocks exist. Why is it OK to destroy them? Oil exists, why is it OK to burn it? That sounds rather painful to me.

 

Well, if we're going to be silly........perhaps you should never walk on grass, eat fruits and vegetables or even breath. Afterall, we "burn" oxygen too.

[Web Rider]

I see your point, but with a poiny liek that, you're only sayign we shoudl stop killing everything. Oil and rocks are not living things.

So, in order to fall into the "don't kill" category, they have to "living".

 

they have no living matter in which to think. But with animals, I see your point. Humanity was given dominance over most of the animals by a superior level of senience, and adaptability, such as having apposeable thumbs...

So survival of the fittest. This is a supporting argument to abortion. Under "survival of the fittest" those who are stronger have the right to do as they please to those who are weaker.

 

We require the meat of the animals to live, and we he no proof that they are or aren't sentient, except that our brains are more complex than any other animal's brain, and able to carry out more complex equations.

Some studies report Dolphins to be more intellgient and having just as great a capability to learn as us, we simply don't teach them things humanity has arbitrarily defined as "intelligent". And we don't require meat persay. We require proteins in the meat, which can be provided in many non-meat ways currently.

 

If cows are sentient, oh well, but accordign to the law of nature, the strong must prey on the weak. But in the case of our own kind, we need to protect those of our kind who are weak and unable to speak for themselves, such as our young.

We are under no threat of extinction, with 6.X billion people in the world and that number increasing to 9 billion in a short 50 yearsish, the human race is NOT anywhere close to going extinct from not birthing more babies.

 

It is natural for a species to try to preserve itself from extinction, as mentioned in the Way the world dies thread, and we are defying nature by murdering our own kind. the strong may prey over the weak, but the strogn of the same species must also protect the weak of their same species, usually.

Many animals destroy their young, Rabbits will kill their young if the colony cannot support them. Lions kill the young of other males they have just defeated. While they are preserving their own genes, they are not preserving their species.

 

So now your argument is: "we must because nature says so". Well, last I checked, nature didn't say computers were OK. And if you are arguing that we should do it because the rest of the animal kingdom does it, or at least parts of the animal kingdom we know about, consider my example above.

 

Male lions after the defeat of a rival, will kill any offspring of the defeated lion. Is it OK to have abortions if your girl gets pregnant by a rapist or another man? Could you kill the children of your wife's previous husband?

[Arcesious]

I see your point. So then we have to do this:

 

We have to work harder to stop crime. We need more severe punishments for sexual offenses, to greater deter people from committing such crimes. We need to make drugs much less avaiable to people, so that means we need to beef up hospital security and limit what can be sold in drugstores and pharmacies. We tighter protocols. And we also need to work on making much better adoption systems than we have now, which includes making more and better refugee centers/daycares for homeless people and adoptable children.

We need to make these commercials advertising sexual enhancement drugs illegal, and we need programs on TV meant to teach stupid people morals and common sense.

 

It would be very hard, yes, and probably wouldn't fix everything, but it would certainly help to lower the abortion rate, and give those children a chance at life. I also see your point about rape victims, I think an exception in abortion should be kept for them. But for people who went off and weren't careful, and got pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. People who do stupid things like that should be forced to wait and have the baby, and at least give the baby to an adoption center, unless if there are medical issues that could cause the mother to die giving birth.

[Rev7]

Size

Level of development

Environment

Dependancy

 

I heard this on the radio one day, and I thought that I should share it.

 

What makes these fetuses any different than us? They are only at a different 'stage' so to say than we are. IMO, it is like killing a regular human being.

 

EDIT: I read the first post, and realized that that Rob said was the same as what I said. Eh, I guess I should read the first post...

[Arcesious]

I think there's no difference. The Fetus is a Human being, not as developed as us, but with the potential become a complete human being if not murdered.

We are taking away people's lives with abortion. Remember what I said about unborn babies having the potential to be very successful human beings if we let them live? I think we should make an amendment to the Constitution about Human rights due to this fact. If an unborn being has the potential to become sentient like any other Human being, he/she must be allowed to live. Because the baby will achieve sentience if allowed to live, we must let he/she live.

"Speak up those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." -Proverbs 31:8

And that's exactly what I'm doing. Not just because of my beliefs, but also because it is morally right and just to do so. Right now I'm thinking of joining an anti-abortion march if I get the chance. The injustice of abortion must end.

[Rev7]

I agree, but unfortunatly so many others don't agree with us. I would probably do the same, if given the chance to. These fetuses could be great people, bad people, your average joe, but IMO we should let them have that chance to become themselves. No single person is the same.

[Web Rider]

I see your point. So then we have to do this:

 

We have to work harder to stop crime. We need more severe punishments for sexual offenses, to greater deter people from committing such crimes. We need to make drugs much less avaiable to people, so that means we need to beef up hospital security and limit what can be sold in drugstores and pharmacies. We tighter protocols. And we also need to work on makign much better adoption systems than we have now, which includes makign more and better refugee centers/daycares for homeless people and adoptable children.

We need to make these commercials advertising sexual enhancement drugs illegal, and we need programs on TV meant to teach stupid people morals and common sense.

Morality has done very little as some of the most "moral" people, ie: Catholic preists, have turned out to be child molesters. Sexual enhancement drugs are fine for people with actual problems. But I do agree they're far too advertized and not used by people who need them. What I would also like to see, in addition to your points, is more emphasis on adopting grown children in the foster system. Everyone in the system needs parents, not just babies.

 

It would be very hard, yes, and probably wouldn't fix everything, but it would certainly help to lower the abortion rate, and give those children a chance at life. I also see your poitn about rape victims, i think an exception in abortion shoudl be kept for them. But for people who went off and weren't careful, and got pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. People who do stupid thigns like that should be forced to wait and have the baby, and at least give the baby to an adoption center, unless if there are medical issues that could cause the mother to die giving birth.

My biggest gripe with limitation is simply that how do you prove she didn't consent? I mean all we've got is his, and her testimony, and remember, the Roe V Wade case was over rape, and it took them MORE than the 9 months to prove she wasn't raped. I think a 3 strikes system is the way I'd go. 3 abortions for whatever, then for medical emergencies only.

 

Now, if some woman is having 3 abortions, I can assure you she's going to have more pregnancies.

 

IMO, it is like killing a regular human being.

 

then I would have to ask why it's OK to give people under 18 no rights save through their parents or other adults?

 

We are takign away people's lives with abortion. Remember what i said about unborn babies having the potential to be very successful human beings if we let them live? I think we should make an amendment to the Consitution about Human rights due to this fact. If an unborn being has the potential to become sentient like any other Human being, he/she must be allowed to live. Because the baby will achieve sentience if allowed to live, we must let he/she live.

 

So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.

[Arcesious]

A baby isn't formed as a possible life unless if the sperm and ovule unite, otherwise, it's not a human being, even if it is life, because a baby requies the sperm and the ovule in order to have the potential to become a human being. It doesn't fully have that potential unless both the sperm and ovule unite.

 

The right to life however should apply to every human being, including unborn babies. The right to life already exists for every human being being, even under 18, except for babies. But humans that are convicted of first degree murder, they are sentenced to death. That does not violate that right though, as they murdered another human being. not giving babies the right to life is like convicting them of first degree murder that they never committed.

 

Basically we're going to keep having this problem until sexual crimes are much better controlled and further punished, and people learn common sense.

[Rev7]

then I would have to ask why it's OK to give people under 18 no rights save through their parents or other adults?

Because the government says that we are not of age to have those sort of responsibilities that accompany being an adult.

So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.

Periods are a natural thing. Masturbation on the other hand...

Now, if some woman is having 3 abortions, I can assure you she's going to have more pregnancies.

Yes, that is most likely what is going to happen. With what you are implying, and the circumstances that you have stated above, a person like that is using abortion as a way not to end up as a mother. That, IMO, is the wrong thing to do.

[Web Rider]

Because the government says that we are not of age to have those sort of responsibilities that accompany being an adult.

Many people start working under the age of 18, paying bills, owning cars, some even own homes. I'd say those are the responsibilities of an adult. Yet they are not given those rights. But you're argument is "the government says so". So, the government is infallible, and therefore, I ask why you are protecting abortion laws? The Government has said "it's OK". Why are you questioning their judgement on some issues and not others?

 

Periods are a natural thing. Masturbation on the other hand...

Would that be the left hand or the right? It's just as natural, self stimulation is healthy and has been around for thousands of years.

 

Yes, that is most likely what is going to happen. With what you are implying, and the circumstances that you have stated above, a person like that is using abortion as a way not to end up as a mother. That, IMO, is the wrong thing to do.

I agree that the way in which people often use abortions is bad. But people who use abortion in such a manner are more than likly to go to the clothes-hangar method rather than stop having sex.

 

A baby isn't formed as a possible life unless if the sperm and ovule unites, otherwise, it's not a human beings, even if it is life, because a baby requies the sperm and the ovule in order to have the potential to become a human being. It doesn't fully have that potential unless both the sperm and ovule unite.

So masturbation and periods are OK because they're not killing possible life. In order to have possible life, it must have....a complete set of genes? Be a combination of a sperm and egg?

 

The right to life however should apply to every human being, including unborn babies. The right to life already exists for every human being being, even under 18, except for babies.

Babes and the unborn are not the same.

 

Basically we're goign to keep havign this problem until sexual crimes are much better controlled and further punished, and people learn common sense.

And how do we get people to learn common sense?

[Arcesious]

Babies, unborn babies, pretty much same thing, in the context I was referring to them in. Humans are humans, never anything more or less. Yes, a complete set of genes is what is required to give the life of the sperm and egg the potential of attaining sentience. Apart, they are human life, but they are incapable of sentience apart from one another.

 

I guess people never will learn common sense no matter how hard we try, but the point stands that unborn babies deserve a chance at life, denying them life is like accusing them of first degree murder, and sentencing them to death. It's injustice. The only thing we can really do is try to teach our dumb species common sense. It may not fully work, but we have to at least try as hard as we can.

[Totenkopf]

..Masturbation on the other hand...

 

What if it's on the original hand?

 

So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.

 

Seriously, though, to say that that route (or menstruation) is seriously akin to abortion is nonsensical. You might as well be saying that spitting will automatically cause you to die of dehydration. Abortion (via the pill or other means) only applies to a fertilized egg.

[Rev7]

Many people start working under the age of 18, paying bills, owning cars, some even own homes. I'd say those are the responsibilities of an adult. Yet they are not given those rights. But you're argument is "the government says so". So, the government is infallible, and therefore, I ask why you are protecting abortion laws? The Government has said "it's OK". Why are you questioning their judgement on some issues and not others?

Well, yes that is very true. But, as far as I know, people who buy cars, houses and have jobs under the age of 18 are still considered minors. Legally we cannot vote, and several other things. I question abortion because I think that people who use abortion are murdering innocents. I think that it is a very wrong thing. I don't agree with a lot of what the government says yes, but we all have to follow the rules that authority figures have set. That is just the way it is, and if we break those rules, we get punished. I question certain things because I know for myself what is right and wrong. I say this again, FOR MYSELF.

So masturbation and periods are OK because they're not killing possible life. In order to have possible life, it must have....a complete set of genes? Be a combination of a sperm and egg?

Are we not talking about how right or wrong killing the unborn is?

Babes and the unborn are not the same.

Okay... please tell me how. Just for clarifacation.

 

Might I ask a simple question. What about babies delivered through C-section? Are you not saying that they have the right to live, and be humans? I might have stated this question wrong though... I will have to think on it...