Woman's right to choose...

[remedios]

[qutoe]Peanut wrote:

It is not sentient, it does not understand the fact that it's alive (i speak of the cow now).[/quote]

To which I replied:

You could say the same of a cow.

Correction:

Oops, I meant fetus. See, they're so similar, I get them mixed up

[Peanut]

But that fetus, will grow to a child, that child will learn to speak, will become sentient. Sorry my dear, you're not "wowing" with me your sharp comments.

[Peanut]

So we can kill BORN deaf children who haven't happened to learn sign language yet? Ridiculous! Either there is definable intrinsic value to life that warrants protection, or there is not. You're doing a piss poor job of distinguishing the unborn child from the cow.

- uhh, one goes moo, one goes ga-ga-goo-goo?

Other then the obvious, a deaf child is still sentient, he/she knows it's a live. A cow doesn't. It cannot phanthom the possibility of it's existence. There it's walking food. Now before you go onto to comparing this to human beings that cannot phanthom the possibility of their own existence, i'll rebuke that point right away but saying that child comes from parents that are sentient and can acknowledge it's sentience. A COW comes from two other cows, that cannot phantom their lives - their offspring is simply something that must survive to continue spreading the genes.

What animals? There would be no more production of domesticated animals, so the only animals that would have to find food are the ones already doing it just fine without our help: wild ones.

- uhh, and where are all the domesticated animals goin to go, my dear? off to the magic land of oz? They will continue to breed, and continue to need nurishment, they dont know how to find their own food, this skills aren't passed down from parent to offspring. They will die off, if they are not fed - so much for stopping animal cruelty.

I also just happen to know that there is no salient difference between the consciousness of a cow and an unborn child, their desire to live, their ability to feel pain, or their innocence.

- you are confusing instinct with desire. Humanity has a desire to live, animals have the instinct to live, because it's programmed into them. Feed, and produce, they are biologically driven to do both - humans choose to do both. Granted feeding isn't so much a choice, but we can be nit-picky about what we eat - animals will take what they can get, if they are deseperate.

Why does that make a difference? Serious question.

- because if a cow cannot value it's own life, not because it does not wish too, but for the simple logicial reason that its brain cannot comprehend thought only instinct. Again, spare me any example about an infirmed person, that's is very different, as this person was born to two people that can state this person is alive and well. A cow's parents, cannot.

What is the purpose of human beings?

great thing about being sentient is that humanity has many purposes. If my purpose is to invent a pair of socks where the left one, will NOT go missing so be it. A cow's purpose...uhhh, go ask one and see what it says.

This IS the appropriate thread. You admit that most wars have not been AS NECESSARY as they should have been to justify the loss of innocent life. If this is the case, then do you not see just a little hypocrisy in Bush's claim to want to create a "culture of life" when he has caused thousands of unnecessary civilian deaths in Iraq under the pretext of self-defense? And I'm not even going to start on the fact that Bush hails from a state that appears to get a PARTICULAR kick out of executing minors and retarded folk. If I really believe him when he talks about being motivated by the "value of life," I'd be perplexed by Bush's warmongering and penchant for the death penalty.

-
i couldn't agree more. Believe me, i am not some conservative hick from armpit arkansas. As a gay man, bush isn't getting too many brownie points for his support of this hate amendment either. Any "war" that has a Bush involved (insert dirty joke here) was not a war. If you wanna get into the technicality of it, guess what the US believes is that last war it was apart of...WW2.

There is absolutely no way for you to know this.

- sure there is. Look at the effect nazism still has on today's world. The KKK, neo-nazism, white supremcy, all still exist. Toronto has just been plagued with horrendous accounts of anti-semetism. All this got it's brunt force from adolf hitler and his gov't. To stop that, was to put this punks in their place. If they weren't stopped, there would be no one to put in once's place, as Germany conquered almost all of europe at one point during the war.

When does a war become so necessary that it justifies the expenditure of innocent human life?

- i am not saying that the innocent life that is lost during war, is justifiable. I am saying that it will happen, and their loss is something to always remember and give solice too. It's never "ok" to kill someone, but it will happen, esp. in times of war and that's the horrible thing about war, the best you can hope for is that the war HAD to happen - if it didn't, then i agree, inncocent life was lost when it shouldn't of been.

The privacy right? It wasn't hard at all. It was outlined when the supreme court ruled that the government couldn't dictate who you could marry or whether you could use condoms. Abortion has been practiced without any bluster since prehistoric times. Men didn't give two flying farts less until women also wanted to leave the home and become financially independent, i.e. until the women's movement started in earnest.

- uhh that's great? I've heard of this little thing called slavery as well, in which most people didn't give a rat's @$$ what was happening to the black people - until of course, people began speaking up for their rights.

What about WWI, the civil war, vietnam, korea, the balkans, Iraq, afghanistan. None of these wars were necessary with a capital "N," nor did they accomplish what they were supposed to.

- notice how four of your 7 options, include wars causes directly by the US. Again, that's a topic for the politically threads, not one that asks whether or not a woman has a right to abort her unborn child.

Does the word "consent" mean nothing?

it does, a stomach stappling is done through consent, as is a diet. I'm not grasping your point here.

Oh really. Tell that to the pro-lifers. Tell that to Mo and raja. And then explain to me, if "right" and "wrong" cannot be clearly delineated, what business it is of yours to tell me how to live.

- uhh, i really dont like mo all that much, lol. Go check out the thread on homosexuality if you wish, we but heads quite a few times, and but quite a few, i mean always.

It's my opinion that you're being awfully blithe about matters which you may or may not know anything about. Which brings me back to my original question: are you a woman?

- and i ask you, why do i have to be?

The point of the women's movement was to free women from the crappy status they are forced into when they can no longer control their reproduction. PERIOD.

- uh NO it wasn't, it was about choice. The choice for a woman to choose her path in life, be it stay at mom, CEO, car mechanic, chef, reverend, yadda yadda. But agian, notice how these choices, affect the woman as ONE person. Abortion is affecting two.

Why bother? I have nothing but contempt for you, given what you've expressed thus far.

- why, this is my argumenet against, boo-hoo that i dont think you're right. Live with it. You feel contempt for me, and yet dont know me. Uhhhh, that's called prejudice.

Oh, so then I can safely assume that you are against the criminalization of abortion? Then we have nothing left to talk about. Because you see, dear friend, the overarching issue for me is whether or not someone else should be able to impose their values on me. As long as you have no intention of trying to make that so, I could care less what you think. As long as it makes you happy and you keep it out of my life, you can think whatever the heck you want.

- then follow you're own advice and stop throwing you're "perfect" beliefs unto everyone else.

You're ALMOST has hypocritical as most conservatives.

Almost.

You appear to contradict yourself here. Birth control pills o.k.? or not o.k.?

- learn what an abortificient is.

Birth control in general is fine, why wouldn't it be. Another choice, that affects ONE person and two when used in unison. Who am i to argue against it? If you dont want children, dont have them.

[Peanut]

btw, sorry for the messy way in which i reached each of your points. Computer malfunctions; next time will be neater.

[remedios]

Other then the obvious, a deaf child is still sentient, he/she knows it's a live. A cow doesn't. It cannot phanthom the possibility of it's existence.

JUST LIKE AN UNBORN BABY.

i'll rebuke that point right away but saying that child comes from parents that are sentient and can acknowledge it's sentience.

I most certainly do not recognize "sentience" in an unborn child.

uhh, and where are all the domesticated animals goin to go, my dear?

Let me spell it out for you: you're arguing that it's impossible to live without killing cows, and that's why it's alright to kill them. I'm arguing that if you can justify killing cows when it's not absolutely necessary, which is in fact the case, then one can justify abortion.

The consequences of human beings deciding it's immoral to kill cows (hundreds of thousands of domesticated cows with no demand for them) does not alter the actual morality or lack thereof of killing cows.

- you are confusing instinct with desire. Humanity has a desire to live, animals have the instinct to live, because it's programmed into them. Feed, and produce, they are biologically driven to do both - humans choose to do both.

I agree that once a child develops a sense of self, it will shortly thereafter develop feelings of attachment to its life, i.e. a desire to live.

A fetus, on the other hand, has no sense of self. It responds instinctively to pain and other stimuli JUST LIKE a cow does, by reacting to electrical messages that tell it that it is in danger. While it may experience a physiological state of panic, it does so no more than a cow, as it does not have language, does not think, nor comprehend what is happening in its environment any more than a cow does . Its conception of existence is no more sophisticated than a cow, and its drive to continue living does not rise from the level of instinct into the realm of thought or emotion.

Stop projecting qualities on the unborn that they simply do not have.

Again, spare me any example about an infirmed person, that's is very different, as this person was born to two people that can state this person is alive and well. A cow's parents, cannot.

"Alive and well" are entirely different than sentient, now aren't they?

- sure there is. Look at the effect nazism still has on today's world. The KKK, neo-nazism, white supremcy, all still exist. Toronto has just been plagued with horrendous accounts of anti-semetism. All this got it's brunt force from adolf hitler and his gov't. To stop that, was to put this punks in their place. If they weren't stopped, there would be no one to put in once's place, as Germany conquered almost all of europe at one point during the war.

That's nice and everything, but there is NO WAY for you to predict what the world would be like if the outcome of WWII had been different. I, on the other hand, can say with absolute certainty that the innocent civilians who died because of WWII would have died of natural causes, disease, or accident, instead of being KILLED.

Or are you arguing that some lives are better off not lived?

- i am not saying that the innocent life that is lost during war, is justifiable.

Ah, but when people make the decision to go to war, that is precisely what they are saying.

- uhh that's great? I've heard of this little thing called slavery as well, in which most people didn't give a rat's @$$ what was happening to the black people - until of course, people began speaking up for their rights.

So you agree that the privacy right was easily obtained?

- notice how four of your 7 options, include wars causes directly by the US. Again, that's a topic for the politically threads, not one that asks whether or not a woman has a right to abort her unborn child.

That might be true, except that the composition of my choices is TOTALLY the product of my lack of knowledge of the war histories of other countries, and has NOTHING to do with my position on foreign or domestic military policy.

You're totally missing the point: if war is o.k., then you can't really argue that being an innocent human being confers an inviolate right to life, now can you?

it does, a stomach stappling is done through consent, as is a diet. I'm not grasping your point here.

You consent to getting your stomach stapled. Women who have taken reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy but become pregnant anyway, have clearly NOT consented to getting pregnant. If anything, their consumption of and use of birth control products is an EXPLICIT declaration of the woman's ABSENCE OF CONSENT to pregnancy. As a readily available and more effective method of birth control (sterilization) is more often than not arbitrarily denied to women who want it, (and is sometimes enshrined as such in law), the consumption and use of other birth control products must stand in as a legally recognized lack of consent.

- and i ask you, why do i have to be?

I'm not saying you have to be, I'd just like to know how much of your opinion is based on actual experience. It is my opinion that if men were the ones who had to sacrifice career and financial independence to do so, there's NO WAY the choice "childbearing and rearing v. abstinence" would ever be mandated by law.

- uh NO it wasn't, it was about choice. The choice for a woman to choose her path in life, be it stay at mom, CEO, car mechanic, chef, reverend, yadda yadda. But agian, notice how these choices, affect the woman as ONE person. Abortion is affecting two.

As is smoking when you're fifteen.

- why, this is my argumenet against, boo-hoo that i dont think you're right. Live with it. You feel contempt for me, and yet dont know me. Uhhhh, that's called prejudice.

In the strictest sense of the word, yes. But prejudice is only bad if unwarranted. Your opinions warrant my contempt.

Now if I hated you purely because you're gay, now THAT would be prejudice.

- then follow you're own advice and stop throwing you're "perfect" beliefs unto everyone else.

So we're all agreed: choice remains legal and pro-lifers can commune with their respective supernatural forces and eventually go to heaven while pro-choicers can burn.

Tee-hee.

- learn what an abortificient is.

As pregnancy is defined as the point of implantation, birth control pills that prevent implantation are NOT abortifacients, but they do end life. Now answer my original question.

Who am i to argue against it? If you dont want children, dont have them.

EXACTYLY!

[PYFAFYKI]

Remedios you seem to be arguing this the most so I'll address this to you. This is becoming too spread out so I'll summerize it. See if you or any others pro-chioce advocates agree or if I've missed anything.

The argument is that until a certain point (the exact point is arguable) in a child's life, the human life is worth no more than that of any other animal. This is because the life is not sentient, it is not self-aware. At any point during the period in which it is not worth more than an animal's life, it can be slaughtered as an animal would be without consequence. Just as an animal can be slaughtered without consequence. This can be done for several reasons including the parents not wanting it, financial reasons, or for other medical reasons.

[Ted]

I might venture a point, that even if fetuses could not understand their existence, they have the potential to do so. Cows don't.

[Peanut]

JUST LIKE AN UNBORN BABY.

'

BUT IT WILL!

I most certainly do not recognize "sentience" in an unborn child.

- but you most certainly will actknowledge that this unborn child WILL have sentience, in 9 months

I'm arguing that if you can justify killing cows when it's not absolutely necessary, which is in fact the case, then one can justify abortion.

- please explain to me how it's absolutely NOT necessary to kill animals to live. I'm sorry, as much as we would love to frolic with cows and pigs, and let them on their way, it wont happen. They are walking food, they were domesticated to be walking food, and that's what they will always be. They cannot survive on their own, they aren't ferral anymore. They will never become sentient, like an unborn child will, and will never have members of it's own species inform us that it is in fact sentient.

A fetus, on the other hand, has no sense of self.

- that is irrelevant. The fetus will become a child and follow suit with your own arguement.

It responds instinctively to pain and other stimuli JUST LIKE a cow does, by reacting to electrical messages that tell it that it is in danger.

- because it's brain isn't big enough to comprehend WHY it's feeling pain. however, it will grow bigger and soon comprehend many things - not just respond to them. a cow will always be as dumb a brick, forever and always.

Stop projecting qualities on the unborn that they simply do not have.

- i haven't, you are dense. Any arguement you give to how stupid a fetus is, is null and void, due to the fact that the fetus will grow into a child and therefore,

develop a sense of self, [and] will shortly thereafter develop feelings of attachment to its life, i.e. a desire to live.

a cow never will.

"Alive and well" are entirely different than sentient, now aren't they?

If a person cannot physically state they are alive, the need someone to do it for them. A cow's parents cannot do this, because a, THEY ARE COWS, b, they are NOT sentient of their own lives and C, THEY ARE COWS.

but there is NO WAY for you to predict what the world would be like if the outcome of WWII had been different

- it's an educated guess based on the events of history. no one cared about the jewish people before, the war was to stop germany. if no one did, they would be conquered, and bam, everyone's a german or a german slave. hence you would be wearing your white tiara and the aryian bride to an aryian groom right now.

Ah, but when people make the decision to go to war, that is precisely what they are saying.

- most people that fought in ww2, were drafted into the army, during the war. i'm pretty sure they didn't sign up for a glorious time in battle, they were forced to go, and whats the only way to avoid prison, to fire blankly into a field and pray you're killing something. this isn't justifible, it's enforcement.

if war is o.k., then you can't really argue that being an innocent human being confers an inviolate right to life, now can you?

- you either cant read, are really dense, or a combination of the two. i never said war is "ok" i said, in the few examples of history, when it had to occur, it did just that, had to occur. i'm not happy it did, and i sure as hell am not proud countries needed to resort to it, but it was either THAT or me being YOUR asyrian groom right now - which makes me thank the LORD i am not right now, cuz honestly honey, i'd prolly would've killed myself by now.

Women who have taken reasonable measures to prevent pregnancy but become pregnant anyway, have clearly NOT consented to getting pregnant.

- uhh no. whether or not, her lover wraps his chopper twelve times and she downs a whole bottle of birth control pills, there is still the risk of getting pregnant, albeit, small. this is a risk, she (and he) are clearly willing to take. no birth control is 100% effective, if it was, you'd have a good point, but it's not, so you dont.

I'm not saying you have to be, I'd just like to know how much of your opinion is based on actual experience. It is my opinion that if men were the ones who had to sacrifice career and financial independence to do so, there's NO WAY the choice "childbearing and rearing v. abstinence" would ever be mandated by law.

- uhh, the fact that i've been raised by women, have had women as teachers, doctors, and friends. I see what womens liberation has done, and it has worked wonders, this has nothing to do with a choice that will end the potential of another's life.

As is smoking when you're fifteen.

- and drinking does and eating too much red meat, and sitting too close to a microwave

In the strictest sense of the word, yes. But prejudice is only bad if unwarranted. Your opinions warrant my contempt.

Now if I hated you purely because you're gay, now THAT would be prejudice.

- you barely know one thing about me, and that's my stance on abortion. you have no idea what kind of person i am, spare me your justification on prejudice, it's prejudice, at least admit to it.

So we're all agreed: choice remains legal and pro-lifers can commune with their respective supernatural forces and eventually go to heaven while pro-choicers can burn.

- considering i dont believe in jesus or the pearly gates or fire and brimstone - i could really care less where pro-lifers think they're going and where they think pro-choicers are going.

As pregnancy is defined as the point of implantation, birth control pills that prevent implantation are NOT abortifacients, but they do end life. Now answer my original question.

a "birth control" that prevents implantation, is an abortificient. Birth control caused the brain to believe the menstral cycle is doing something it's not. Therefore no egg to pass down.

[remedios]

BUT IT WILL!

Why does that make killing it different?

- but you most certainly will actknowledge that this unborn child WILL have sentience, in 9 months

No, I acknowledge that it will have more knowledge of self and a general awareness more sophisticated than a cow in about a year or two.

- please explain to me how it's absolutely NOT necessary to kill animals to live.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion suggests that to maintain a health lifestyle no one need consume more than 7 ounces of meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, OR nuts. We could all EASILY consume 7 ounces of beans, eggs or nuts a day to replace the meat we'd sacrifice so that we can create a culture of life.

They will never become sentient, like an unborn child will, and will never have members of it's own species inform us that it is in fact sentient.

An unwanted, unborn baby will "never become sentient and will never have members of its own species inform us that it is in fact sentient." Because it will be dead.

- that is irrelevant. The fetus will become a child and follow suit with your own arguement.

Hardly. You have yet to explain why anyone should care that what they want to kill might become a sentient being. Quite frankly, I don't see why that should matter at all. It is not sentient now, when the killing will be done. You are arguing that people should balance their immediate needs against a possibility in the future. There is no reason a person should bother, unless, of course, THEY WANT TO.

- i haven't, you are dense. Any arguement you give to how stupid a fetus is, is null and void, due to the fact that the fetus will grow into a child and therefore, Quote:develop a sense of self, [and] will shortly thereafter develop feelings of attachment to its life, i.e. a desire to live.

Exactly how does the fact that the child CAN grow to sentience make it wrong to kill it when it's NOT sentient, i.e. when it's no different than a cow will always be.

You have failed to explain why I should give a hoot about the potential for future sentience.

- it's an educated guess based on the events of history. no one cared about the jewish people before, the war was to stop germany. if no one did, they would be conquered, and bam, everyone's a german or a german slave. hence you would be wearing your white tiara and the aryian bride to an aryian groom right now.

Nice try. Now that reason and logic have entered the conversation . . . If you refuse to admit that you have absolutely no way of predicting what the world MAY have been like if WWII had swung the other way, then reasoning is wasted on you.

- most people that fought in ww2, were drafted into the army, during the war.

AS IF I was talking about them. You're the one who's dense. The infantry doesn't "decide" to go to war, retard, presidents and other world leaders do.

- you either cant read, are really dense, or a combination of the two. i never said war is "ok" i said, in the few examples of history, when it had to occur, it did just that, had to occur.

And you're an idiot if you don't see that what you're doing is JUSTIFYING KILLING HUMAN LIFE. PERIOD.

i'm not happy it did, and i sure as hell am not proud countries needed to resort to it, but it was either THAT or me being YOUR asyrian groom right now - which makes me thank the LORD i am not right now, cuz honestly honey, i'd prolly would've killed myself by now.

Isn't that cute. Too bad it's total BULL that you pulled out of your butt.

- uhh no. whether or not, her lover wraps his chopper twelve times and she downs a whole bottle of birth control pills, there is still the risk of getting pregnant, albeit, small.

Which is why the arbitrary refusal of doctors and states to provide sterilization when requested is so APPALLING. The CHOICE to absolutely prevent pregnancy is not afforded to women. You can either have it one way or the other: allow women to make the choice to sterilize, or force them into a situation where they will abort.

But that brings us to the real crux of the issue. What is really being controlled is women's sexuality. We are told that we are not allowed to make the choice never to become pregnant (sterilization refused) and that if we want to avoid pregnancy, we have to become nuns (the drive to make abortion illegal).

It is further evidence that society doesn't really care about children, or they would do whatever is necessary to ensure that children are born to parents who want them.

If pro-lifers really cared about life, they'd be pushing for more research to provide a fail-safe birth control method and for sterilization to be available to those who make an informed decision to be sterilized, regardless of their age and/or whether or not they've had children already.

I mean, really, what is up with this forced birthing crud?

- uhh, the fact that i've been raised by women, have had women as teachers, doctors, and friends.

AS IF this is the same. You wish.

I see what womens liberation has done, and it has worked wonders, this has nothing to do with a choice that will end the potential of another's life.

First of all, I think you'd be surprised by how many of your teachers, doctors and friends have had abortions, or that have been the beneficiaries of women who's lives have been better because abortion was available.

Second of all, as legal abortion and the women's movement have been roughly coincident in time, there is really NO WAY for you to tell whether the women's movement would ever have been successful if abortion had been illegal, now is there? Retard.

- and drinking does and eating too much red meat, and sitting too close to a microwave . . .

You see my point. Fabulous!

- you barely know one thing about me, and that's my stance on abortion.

Litmus test, baby, litmus test.

Look, you've stipulated that you wouldn't criminalize abortion. So long as that's your position, you are pro-choice and I have zero problem with you except that I find your arguments sophomoric and illogical

- considering i dont believe in jesus or the pearly gates or fire and brimstone - i could really care less where pro-lifers think they're going and where they think pro-choicers are going.

It's called a joke, dufus.

. . .a "birth control" that prevents implantation, is an abortificient.

So you're saying that every time an egg is fertilized, the woman in question is pregnant, regardless of whether the egg is subsequently implanted or not? If that's true, I wonder how many times I've actually been pregnant. It could have been any number of times.

You realize that you are in direction contradiction with the medical establishment on this one.

And also showing yourself to be anti-science and a complete loon.

Tee-hee.

[Peanut]

No, I acknowledge that it will have more knowledge of self and a general awareness more sophisticated than a cow in about a year or two.

- so then why dont we support killing children under 2 years of age? they wont understand what's going on, they wont plead to keep their lives. a 2 year old is just as helpless and unaware as a 7 month old unborn child.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion suggests that to maintain a health lifestyle no one need consume more than 7 ounces of meat, poultry, fish, dry beans, eggs, OR nuts. We could all EASILY consume 7 ounces of beans, eggs or nuts a day to replace the meat we'd sacrifice so that we can create a culture of life

- and these eggs will come from chicken, that will need to be raised in order to lay them. what are we to do once they stop? let them roam free but still FEED them? makes a hell of a lot more sense to just kill and eat them.

An unwanted, unborn baby will "never become sentient and will never have members of its own species inform us that it is in fact sentient." Because it will be dead.

damn WOMAN! THE CHILD WILL BE SENTIENT, GIVE IT THE TIME ALLOTED TO IT, BY NATURE, TO BECOME SENTIENT. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP THIS GROWTH. The fact that it's unwanted is IRRELEVENT. Yes, that means what the mother wants, in this SPECIFIC AND ONLY INSTANCE, is irrelevant.

It is not sentient now, when the killing will be done. You are arguing that people should balance their immediate needs against a possibility in the future. There is no reason a person should bother, unless, of course, THEY WANT TO.

- but WILL BE in a few years. Compare this amount of time to the rest of the child's lifespan and it's miniscule. A COW WILL NEVER BECOME SENTIENT, REGARDLESS OF HOW INNOCENT IT IS.

Exactly how does the fact that the child CAN grow to sentience make it wrong to kill it when it's NOT sentient, i.e. when it's no different than a cow will always be.

- THAT'S THE WHOLE FRICKIN ARGUEMENT. a cow will NEVER EVER become sentient, the child will, this guarantee that it will become sentient is enough to value it's life. Who cares that it has to pass a stage where it wont know what's causing it pain or understand what's goin on with it in the womb. in a few years it will be, a cow will never have this, EVER.

the fact that humans are the only animal on the planet to achieve sentience, is enough to state their lives are different from that of animals.

Now that reason and logic have entered the conversation . . . If you refuse to admit that you have absolutely no way of predicting what the world MAY have been like if WWII had swung the other way, then reasoning is wasted on you.

- ED-U-CA-TED GUESS. you know what those are right, being a biologist and therefore some kind of scientist. THEY ARE THE BASIS OF THE WHOLE FRICKIN SCIENTIFIC and SOCIAL WORLD. from this guess, i can safely assume, what would've happened, due to germany's progession during WW2. Uhh, the saying "Today Europe, Tomorrow the World" - should be ringing a bell here.

AS IF I was talking about them. You're the one who's dense. The infantry doesn't "decide" to go to war, retard, presidents and other world leaders do.

- no you use "retard" as an insult, please dont have children.

Secondly, lemme explain more about history to you, because you must be the DUMBEST person i have ever met when it comes to facts about history. The infantry was wiped out, rather quickly in WW2, by 1941, all other countries, other then the states, involved in fighting the germans and their allies, were conscripting and drafting the local population into fighting the war. The states, which had just entered the war at this time, was the only country bringing in trained officers to fight, they too were quickly dismantled and soon the states was forced to draft the local populus into fighting. Basically the war was fought by people forced to fight and by a few, who wanted to.

And you're an idiot if you don't see that what you're doing is JUSTIFYING KILLING HUMAN LIFE. PERIOD.

- i am justifying why these men and women had to die, i am not justifying the reason in which their lives were ended - war.

Which is why the arbitrary refusal of doctors and states to provide sterilization when requested is so APPALLING. The CHOICE to absolutely prevent pregnancy is not afforded to women.

- uhh, then go to canada, and get your tubes tied.

The CHOICE to absolutely prevent pregnancy is not afforded to women. You can either have it one way or the other: allow women to make the choice to sterilize, or force them into a situation where they will abort.

- dont be a drama queen. the reason it is not easily afforded to women, is because fiddling with their reproductive system, man result in death, in rare cases. this chance of dying is enough so that surgeon would try it - too risky. as nothing to with women's lib and her choice and blah blah blah - it's about safety. which doesn't make sense, because abortion holds the risk of death to the mother as well. so it's either possible death one way or possible death another.

First of all, I think you'd be surprised by how many of your teachers, doctors and friends have had abortions, or that have been the beneficiaries of women who's lives have been better because abortion was available.

- as if THAT held any relevence.

Second of all, as legal abortion and the women's movement have been roughly coincident in time, there is really NO WAY for you to tell whether the women's movement would ever have been successful if abortion had been illegal, now is there? Retard

- again, dont have children, ever.

and there no way of proving the opposite of what you said, is there? so we're at a stale mate.

Look, you've stipulated that you wouldn't criminalize abortion. So long as that's your position, you are pro-choice and I have zero problem with you except that I find your arguments sophomoric and illogical

- i am most certainly NOT pro-choice, i am not proud that women have this right and i would NEVER fight to keep it. i simply wouldn't fight to have it dissolved forever and all eternity.

So you're saying that every time an egg is fertilized, the woman in question is pregnant, regardless of whether the egg is subsequently implanted or not? If that's true, I wonder how many times I've actually been pregnant. It could have been any number of times

- i'm saying every time an egg gets fertilized, the body willd o what it most naturally wishes to do, and that's implant the egg, unless something is defective and the body needs to flush itself clean. Any artifical method to prevent this, is the use of an abortificient, not birth control.

And also showing yourself to be anti-science and a complete loon.

- i'm an engineer sweety, to say that i am anti-science, is like saying pat robertson is anti-jesus.

[remedios]

- so then why dont we support killing children under 2 years of age?

For the very simple reason that one cannot prevent the completion of pregnancy, nor the existence of a child by killing him at 2.

If you argue, as I know you will, that killing him at 2 months is no different that killing him at 2, I'll say, well isn't that nice, we're right back where we started: with the question of whether or not killing a non-sentient being is wrong simply because it CAN develop into sentience.

And I will emphatically say "NO!"

- and these eggs will come from chicken, that will need to be raised in order to lay them. what are we to do once they stop? let them roam free but still FEED them? makes a hell of a lot more sense to just kill and eat them.

Chickens can fend for themselves perfectly well.

damn WOMAN! THE CHILD WILL BE SENTIENT, GIVE IT THE TIME ALLOTED TO IT, BY NATURE, TO BECOME SENTIENT. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO STOP THIS GROWTH.

You still haven't explained why?

The fact that it's unwanted is IRRELEVENT. Yes, that means what the mother wants, in this SPECIFIC AND ONLY INSTANCE, is irrelevant.

Except it's ONLY THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT "INSTANCE" IN HER ENTIRE LIFE! It should not be the one where what she wants is irrelevant. Are you really so retarded as to believe this a good idea?

- but WILL BE in a few years.

So what? You still haven't explained why I should care.

- THAT'S THE WHOLE FRICKIN ARGUEMENT. a cow will NEVER EVER become sentient, the child will, this guarantee that it will become sentient is enough to value it's life.

Actually, that's YOUR argument. I argued that killing non-sentient beings is not wrong. You insist that I should care that they can become sentient. I say, YES, they will become sentient but that does not change the fact that killing non-sentient beings is not wrong. When a baby is unborn, it is not sentient.

You have to convince me that there is some reason that anyone should care that, although not sentient now, their unwanted, unborn baby will be sentient in future.

- ED-U-CA-TED GUESS.

Self-serving bull's more like it.

you know what those are right, being a biologist and therefore some kind of scientist.

Actually, what I know is that they are wrong AS OFTEN as they are right.

from this guess, i can safely assume, what would've happened, due to germany's progession during WW2. Uhh, the saying "Today Europe, Tomorrow the World" - should be ringing a bell here.

NOPE.

- no you use "retard" as an insult, please dont have children.

Oh, believe me, I'd very much like to. Unfortunately for you and your stupid ilk, that may very well have to be accomplished through abortion, as sterilization is not available to me.

The infantry was wiped out, rather quickly in WW2, by 1941, all other countries, other then the states, involved in fighting the germans and their allies, were conscripting and drafting the local population into fighting the war. The states, which had just entered the war at this time, was the only country bringing in trained officers to fight, they too were quickly dismantled and soon the states was forced to draft the local populus into fighting. Basically the war was fought by people forced to fight and by a few, who wanted to.

Doesn't change that a collection of people responsible for the lives of their countrymen, the leaders of the respective countries, MADE A DECISION TO SACRIFICE HUMAN LIFE.

- i am justifying why these men and women had to die, i am not justifying the reason in which their lives were ended - war.

Splitting hairs now, are we?

- uhh, then go to canada, and get your tubes tied.

I am not convinced that things would be any different in Canada. Show me different and I'll think about it. Still doesn't change the forced-birthing mentality of the United States. It's rather repulsive, actually.

- dont be a drama queen. the reason it is not easily afforded to women, is because fiddling with their reproductive system, man result in death, in rare cases.

Bull. No physician I have ever asked to perform the procedure stated risk to health as his/her reason for not being willing to do it. It's always been, "You may change your mind," or "But you don't have children yet." If people just got it through their damned heads that not a few women simply aren't interested in having kids, there would be a lot fewer abortions.

because abortion holds the risk of death to the mother as well.

FACT: abortion is safer than childbirth. At least for the mother that is.

- as if THAT held any relevence.

You argued that abortion has played no positive role in the results of the womens movement. You base this on the women in your life that you've seen. If some fraction of them had abortions, it'd kind of put a damper on your argument that their gains had nothing to do with abortion, now wouldn't it?

Quote:Second of all, as legal abortion and the women's movement have been roughly coincident in time, there is really NO WAY for you to tell whether the women's movement would ever have been successful if abortion had been illegal, now is there? Retard

- again, dont have children, ever.

I notice you didn't answer the question.

and there no way of proving the opposite of what you said, is there? so we're at a stale mate.

I CAN say that abortion played some role in bringing women to the positive place you find them today, er, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY.

- i'm saying every time an egg gets fertilized, the body willd o what it most naturally wishes to do, and that's implant the egg, unless something is defective and the body needs to flush itself clean. Any artifical method to prevent this, is the use of an abortificient, not birth control.

Up to 80% of fertilized eggs are not implanted (do a google search). I sincerely doubt that 80% of all fertilized eggs are defective.

And here we are again, with some dumb pro-lifer arguing that we should live our lives dictated to by our biology. How pathetic.

- i'm an engineer sweety, to say that i am anti-science, is like saying pat robertson is anti-jesus.

O.k., so you're simply fond of speaking of things of which you know nothing then.

[Peanut]

And I will emphatically say "NO!"

and i'll say yes, and then we're stuck - so i guess we agree to disagree.

Chickens can fend for themselves perfectly well.

- until they're run over by cars, or eaten by dogs. same goes for cows, that will prolly be shot dead on site, so that farmers can protect their crops. same goes with sheep and pigs.

You still haven't explained why?

- you're mother clearly gave you the time alotted to you by nature to live, why shouldnt all unborn have this?

Are you really so retarded as to believe this a good idea?

- no i'm only decent enough not to use THAT word as an insult - you friggin airhead.

As to your ridiculous point, what the mother may want in this instant is irrelevent, her choice on the matter (assuming we're sticking with your arguement of the pregnancy being an unwanted one) affects her unborn's child's life - sorry, you haven't said anything to make me think otherwise.

Oh, believe me, I'd very much like to. Unfortunately for you and your stupid ilk, that may very well have to be accomplished through abortion, as sterilization is not available to me.

MY ilk, you use a word to hatefully describe infirmed people as an insult, and I'M spreading ilk. Dont have kids.

You have to convince me that there is some reason that anyone should care that, although not sentient now, their unwanted, unborn baby will be sentient in future.

- using your stupid cow example. if we're gonna kill cows, we should be able to abort unborn. the small thing seperating a cow from a human, is that human will become sentient - making your argument null and void. i'm arguing that the child will attain sentience, the fact that it will is enough to claim it has a right to be born. because one day down the line, it will learn to value it's life. a cow wont, ever.

I am not convinced that things would be any different in Canada. Show me different and I'll think about it. Still doesn't change the forced-birthing mentality of the United States. It's rather repulsive, actually.

a friend of mine is one of 5 children. 2 of those children are twins. after the 5th, her mother said no more, and got her tubes tied, legally, in canada (as i am canadian). and no i dont mean a friend of a friend of a friend of mine, i mean, a good friend of mine, i see daily, at school.

It's also replusive ending the life of something before it even has the right to acknowledge it's own existence and calling this act a "right".

Bull. No physician I have ever asked to perform the procedure stated risk to health as his/her reason for not being willing to do it. It's always been, "You may change your mind," or "But you don't have children yet." If people just got it through their damned heads that not a few women simply aren't interested in having kids, there would be a lot fewer abortions.

- but this is a life altering decision. if you can be absolutely positive you dont want children, get your tubes tied. it doesn't mean you'll stop ovulating though. and in rare cases you may have an ectopic pregnancy. If you do, you are legally capable of suing your doctor. uhh...maybe this is the "other" reason doctors arent so willing to preform this operation.

If some fraction of them had abortions, it'd kind of put a damper on your argument that their gains had nothing to do with abortion

- no it doesn't, because all these women have been sucessful (in THEIR minds) before, during, and after having children.

Second of all, as legal abortion and the women's movement have been roughly coincident in time, there is really NO WAY for you to tell whether the women's movement would ever have been successful if abortion had been illegal, now is there?

- uhh, cuz you cant disprove what i say as well. we're stuck and then go in circles, it gets boring.

I CAN say that abortion played some role in bringing women to the positive place you find them today, er, BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY.

postive and more successful are not the same thing.

Up to 80% of fertilized eggs are not implanted (do a google search).

- like i'm gonna let google be the all-knowing guide to the universe for me.

And here we are again, with some dumb pro-lifer arguing that we should live our lives dictated to by our biology. How pathetic.

- when another life is involved, then yes. when it's just ONE and ONLY one person, have your nose removed and placed on your ass for all i care.

O.k., so you're simply fond of speaking of things of which you know nothing then.

- for a biologist, you're not too logical yourself sweety.

[PYFAFYKI]

I offer a point. If the future potential of a child is not important simply because at the time when it is killed it is not sentient, then why are so many laws based on future potentials? The primary reason for civil lawsuits is that a person was injured who "may" have brought in money that is necesary to the family or individual.

As another point, are we as humans truley on a whole different level than animals?

You thought dolphins and chimpanzees were the most intelligent non-human animal? Think again. Research has shown that birds are much smarter than we thought. At a recent conference in Germany findings were revealed on the intelligence of many species of birds.

They can understand each other's intentions, use tools more efficiently than primates and have an understanding of cause and effect comparable to that of a three-year old child.

Even though most birds have brains the size of a garden pea, their mental abilities surpass those of chimpanzees, whose brains typically weigh over 2kg.

Finches have been shown to retrieve food from a clear tube by pulling food out with a twig - chimpanzees push and lose the food. This shows an understanding of cause and effect which is not present in humans until about the age of three.

Ravens, crows and jays often fight each other in mixed communities. Researchers claim their behaviour stimulates their appreciation of how they interact with each other.

Western scrub jays not only hide surplus food, they constantly move it to different hiding places if they suspect it will be stolen.

Scientists have traditionally only looked for demonstrations of animal intelligence in primates and larger mammals. This research shows that if the net is cast wider it will be clear that animal intelligence is much more common than people think.
Source: The Times 2 November 2003

So are some birds intelligent enough that killing them would be a crime?

[remedios]

and i'll say yes, and then we're stuck - so i guess we agree to disagree.

fine, but if we ever meet in a bar and this comes up, prepare to throw down

- you're mother clearly gave you the time alotted to you by nature to live, why shouldnt all unborn have this?

My mother did not, however, do the same for her seventh child. She is happy she made that decision, my dad, me, and my five siblings are also happy she made that decision. Not only are we happy, we were afforded more resources and more attention because of it.

And the dead baby - what does it think? Nothing. Doesn't know it ever existed, doesn't miss the life it might have had, etc., etc.

As to your ridiculous point, what the mother may want in this instant is irrelevent, her choice on the matter (assuming we're sticking with your arguement of the pregnancy being an unwanted one) affects her unborn's child's life - sorry, you haven't said anything to make me think otherwise.

You did not, in fact, address the point that if a woman doesn't have autonomy when making the most important, life-altering choice that ANYBODY EVER MAKES, she doesn't really have much autonomy at all. Apparently this matters not to you.

MY ilk, you use a word to hatefully describe infirmed people as an insult . . .

Why yes, I do. ;D

- using your stupid cow example. if we're gonna kill cows, we should be able to abort unborn. the small thing seperating a cow from a human, is that human will become sentient - making your argument null and void.

My argument is NOT that killing the unborn is o.k. because they are exactly like cows in every way throughout development, it is that killing the unborn is o.k. because they are EXACTLY like cows when the killing takes place.

What it comes down to is that you think women should have to bear the burden of unwanted children because of some stupid wisp of potentiality. And I say that's about the biggest pile of crap I've heard in a long time.

a friend of mine is one of 5 children. 2 of those children are twins. after the 5th, her mother said no more, and got her tubes tied, legally, in canada (as i am canadian). and no i dont mean a friend of a friend of a friend of mine, i mean, a good friend of mine, i see daily, at school.

Yeah, if I had five kids, I could also go and get my tubes tied, no questions asked. It's when you have ZERO children that they refuse to do it. Still haven't solved my problem.

It's also replusive ending the life of something before it even has the right to acknowledge it's own existence and calling this act a "right".

Yes, in your irrational little head. In my mind, there is absolutely nothing wrong with killing something that doesn't even know it exists, whether it might in 2 years or not. That is ESPECIALLY the case when doing so will result in a better life for those who already have self-awareness.

- but this is a life altering decision. if you can be absolutely positive you dont want children, get your tubes tied.

How many times do I have to say it: THEY WON'T DO IT. Are you suggesting I tie them myself?

If you do, you are legally capable of suing your doctor. uhh...maybe this is the "other" reason doctors arent so willing to preform this operation.

You cannot sue for a known and declared complication of an elective operation. You can only sue for negligence. Do you know the difference between the two?

-no it doesn't, because all these women have been sucessful (in THEIR minds) before, during, and after having children.

That's nice. How do you know they didn't use abortion to plan those children so that they could be successful both before and after having them?

- uhh, cuz you cant disprove what i say as well. we're stuck and then go in circles, it gets boring.

Yes I can, because abortion was an integral PART of the change in womens status that has been seen over the past thirty years. Couldn't manage the logic on this one, I see.

. . . postive and more successful are not the same thing.

In this case, they are.

- like i'm gonna let google be the all-knowing guide to the universe for me.

Except google will lead you to peer-reviewed research. Still not good enough for you? Makes me curious just just how informed a scientist you really are.

- when another life is involved, then yes.

So then, by your logic, men and women should never be able to smoke, drink, or expose themselves to other environmental toxins. Women especially, because, according to your definition, they may be pregnant at any time.

Idiotic on its face.

[xana]

What bothers me most about the abortion debate is the way that it divides the republican and democratic parties and our country basically in half. The views of conservatives and liberals of each other is overwhelmed by the metaphors of murder and religious fanaticism. The debate that is taking place here in this chat forum is somewhat capable of transcending these stereotypes because its participants are trying to have a moral and logical debate and rantings aside are not trying to generalize or stereotype but conduct debate. However in our daily lives, in our political lives, we separate ourselves from those who we consider proponents of death or ridiculous fanatics and say that liberals are evil or pro-lifers are unintelligent.
Ube I thank you for your comments because I was getting a bit off track of this debate which regards the woman’s right to choose and the justifications for and against that right. I did intend to try to refine this debate to that grey area where morality lies. I think that discussion of killing animals for food and arguments about killing un-sentient children should be left alone. Slaughter of animals has nothing to do with abortion and the point at which a fetus can be considered sentient is not a moral issue, and is a very insecure premise on which to debate. This is a matter of opinion of course but those who are pro-choice and justify their position by qualifying the fetus as subhuman or not sentient are opening themselves up to all kinds of flaws in logic and are clearly just trying to put themselves on some kind of high ground where they can’t be attacked. This is a defensive argument, it is indefensible, it is claiming to knowledge that cannot be decided by us, it leads to yes it is no it isn’t debate which is stupid.
What I do think is relevant here is the discussion of justice and care, and of rights and morality.
Assuming, for my argument’s sake, that killing an unborn fetus is killing a sentient person, and is immoral when unjust, I say that the discussion can be centered on when this immoral act is justified. Everyone can intuit that the situation of a pregnant mother is unlike other relationships between two persons because of the connectedness and dependency of the child on the mother. The mother is analogous to the life support system of the fetus. For an argument on justice it may be worthy to note that killing is frequently justified by some in cases of war or punishment but these cases are different. Pregnancy is more akin to self-defense or life support situations when the interconnectedness of the two persons is more extreme. There are times when abortion is exactly self defense in cases where the child’s persistence will kill the mother. But also self-defense offers us an appropriate analogy of gray area where killing is justified by law. Sometimes in self defense cases the attacker is slain in questionable circumstances but that the murderer is justified if their intent is reasonable. The life-support analogy is yet more appropriate because of an argument put forth by Judith Thompson which shows a distinction between disconnecting from another person despite their dependency on you for life support and slitting a person’s throat which secures their death. If a woman has the right to disconnect herself from the fetus because of her sense of care for herself whether preservation or her right to self-determination and her right to her sexuality, she is not necessarily a murderer thought she may know that the death of her child will result. This is different from securing the child’s death, such as in late-term abortions when the child’s life could be preserved after disconnecting it from her. The analogy given by Thompson is that say you were kidnapped and awake having without your choice been connected to a famous violinist who now depends on your kidneys for the next 9 months in order to survive. Morality, based on intuition (upon which we clearly rely else we’d have no debate) says that while knowing that being separated from this clearly sentient person who has a right to life, you also have a right to have determined your situation and to have chosen it, and so are not responsible in cutting off the violinist for their life. However should the violinist survive somehow it would be murder and unjust to slit his throat.
This brings up new thoughts on the justice of the abortion. One being that the difference between a woman and you connected to the violinist is that a woman is held vastly more responsible for having become the life support system to a fetus, she should be abstinent, or less overtly sexual, or more intelligent, in order to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. And here this becomes a debate about the sexual and human rights of a woman which are undermined by societal pressure and law. The second is that if technology existed to save very early-term fetuses and preserve them outside of the womb, securing the death of these fetuses would also be immoral. And what about the responsibility of a mother to the child even once she is “disconnected?”<br> So Rights: Is a woman’s right to the care and determination of her body and sexuality upheld in our society?
Justice: Is knowingly causing death of a person equally immoral to murder and therefore ALWAYS unjust?
Care: How do we morally balance the responsibilities of a woman to care for herself and for a child that is unwanted in today’s society, in the past, and in the future?
Morality: In what way is it society’s burden if we separate the rights of the child from the rights of the mother and it gets to live and she has the right to remove it from her?