So you think that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should have to go through a 40 week pregnancy, then decide if she wants to keep the baby or put it up for adoption? (If someone already posed this question I apologize, I'm not reading through all 600 posts)Abortion should be illigeal. A babies heart starts beating after about 3-4 weeks. That means it is ALIVE. Think about this when your heart stops beating that is when your considered dead right? So would you not be alive when your heart starts beating? Yeah try to think of an argument for that...
It's not a fetus it's a baby, it'd be the same as ifsomebody went into a hospital and killed all the newborn babies. I'm sorry to say but if you support abortion, YOU SUPPORT MURDER, so stop!
RAGINGxPONY
If murder is illegal, why isn't abortion?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Abortion should be illigeal. A babies heart starts beating after about 3-4 weeks. That means it is ALIVE. Think about this when your heart stops beating that is when your considered dead right? So would you not be alive when your heart starts beating? Yeah try to think of an argument for that...
It's not a fetus it's a baby, it'd be the same as ifsomebody went into a hospital and killed all the newborn babies. I'm sorry to say but if you support abortion, YOU SUPPORT MURDER, so stop!
So you think that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should have to go through a 40 week pregnancy, then decide if she wants to keep the baby or put it up for adoption? (If someone already posed this question I apologize, I'm not reading through all 600 posts) It has. It's a valid point though. However, most sane pro life advocates seem to condone exceptions for things like rape and complications.
And as it is apparent I mentioned the psychological effects BEFORE you asked for citations. :|Teenaged wrote:On the inevitability of abortion in some cases. As you see this point is not affected on whether or not the fetus is considered to be alive or sentient. One can raise objections to it based on that argument or set limits in the validity of my argument but the argument itself is not swayed by it. My argument would be countered by other arguments, such as someone showing me that its not inevitable, since for instance the adoption system is 100% accessible by anyone who wishes to give their baby for adoption, or that its not inevitable since an unwanted pregnancy has too few negative effects on a mother.
Also the argument of whether or not the fetus is alive or not to me seems very arguable and no deffinite answer would come of it.
_________________________________________
Snipes_2 wrote: So Killing someone is better than giving them a slight chance to live? An Unwanted pregnancy has the same physical effects as a "Wanted" pregnancy.The Adoption centers are pretty Accessible to anyone.
__________________________________________
Teenaged wrote:
Again you are ignoring the effects of an unwanted pregnancy simply by stating that the physical effects are the same. What about the psychological effects? I saw you were quick to cite sources that include psychological effects when those effects "argue"foryour stance.(RED) I have every reason to doubt that.
_____________________________________________
Snipes_2 wrote:
Please, post a site supporting your position. The Site I posted is accessible to anyone, it is neither Pro-Choice, nor is it Pro-Life.
___________________________________________
Again, my reply.
Snipes_2
And as it is apparent I mentioned the psychological effects BEFORE you asked for citations. :|[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Teenaged wrote:On the inevitability of abortion in some cases. As you see this point is not affected on whether or not the fetus is considered to be alive or sentient. One can raise objections to it based on that argument or set limits in the validity of my argument but the argument itself is not swayed by it. My argument would be countered by other arguments, such as someone showing me that its not inevitable, since for instance the adoption system is 100% accessible by anyone who wishes to give their baby for adoption, or that its not inevitable since an unwanted pregnancy has too few negative effects on a mother.
Also the argument of whether or not the fetus is alive or not to me seems very arguable and no deffinite answer would come of it.
_________________________________________
Snipes_2 wrote: So Killing someone is better than giving them a slight chance to live? An Unwanted pregnancy has the same physical effects as a "Wanted" pregnancy.The Adoption centers are pretty Accessible to anyone.
__________________________________________
Teenaged wrote:
Again you are ignoring the effects of an unwanted pregnancy simply by stating that the physical effects are the same. What about the psychological effects? I saw you were quick to cite sources that include psychological effects when those effects "argue"foryour stance.
(RED) I have every reason to doubt that.
_____________________________________________
Snipes_2 wrote:
Please, post a site supporting your position. The Site I posted is accessible to anyone, it is neither Pro-Choice, nor is it Pro-Life.
___________________________________________
Again, my reply.
Teenaged
Again, I was not replying in accordance to "Psychological" effects.
I was replying to this.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Teenaged wrote:On the inevitability of abortion in some cases. As you see this point is not affected on whether or not the fetus is considered to be alive or sentient. One can raise objections to it based on that argument or set limits in the validity of my argument but the argument itself is not swayed by it. My argument would be countered by other arguments, such as someone showing me that its not inevitable, since for instance the adoption system is 100% accessible by anyone who wishes to give their baby for adoption, or that its not inevitable since an unwanted pregnancy has too few negative effects on a mother.
Also the argument of whether or not the fetus is alive or not to me seems very arguable and no deffinite answer would come of it.
_________________________________________
Snipes_2 wrote:So Killing someone is better than giving them a slight chance to live? An Unwanted pregnancy has the same physical effects as a "Wanted" pregnancy.The Adoption centers are pretty Accessible to anyone.
Pro-Choice is the same as Pro-Abortion. You promote Abortion. The "Right To Choose" is what you're giving women. The Right to choose if their child lives or dies, which is not up to them to decide.Snipes_2Says who?
"Please, post a site supporting your position. The Site I posted is accessible to anyone, it is neither Pro-Choice, nor is it Pro-Life."
Stating your overall position. Obviously Rape has psychological effects, the under 4% that it happens to. I asked for a site that stated your overall position on the matter. Not just your position on "Rape Abortion".
you've actually made her argument for her with your responses in this thread....[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Lol at Ignorant generalization.
binpink
Some people refuse to address the issue, as you might've seen.
The choice is between women's personal freedom/reproductive rights and a fetus. Pro-lifers choose the fetus. How that's a one sided generalization, I'll never know.
I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Pro-Choice is the same as Pro-Abortion. You promote Abortion. The "Right To Choose" is what you're giving women. The Right to choose if their child lives or dies, which is not up to them to decide.Asthma_Is_SexySays who? Do you support killing children or that was a lousy joke?
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Because it cannot exist outside of the womans womb and the woman should in no case what so ever be forced to suffer mental torture, physical pain, and 9 months of carrying a child she did not want and was essentially forced into. It is unfortunate that an abortion happens in this case but can you honest to God tell me it is wrong for the mother to not want to go through with the child of a man who took her against her will? Would you want to?
warbmxjohn
Why can't it exist outside the Mothers WOmb if it's a perfectly healthy child? It is wrong to have an Abortion, you are KILLING another human being. I would not want to have a Child under those Circumstances but I would. I can Honestly say I would have trouble with it, but I would not Abort the Child.
It seems you don't understand abortion laws. In a legal abortion the fetus must be aborted before the fetus reaches a certain point of viability, this basically means "before it can possibly live outside the womb". You use outright incorrect terminology that diminishes your credibility and integrity. One cannot "abort a child", a fetus is not a child. YET. Any late term abortions are only performed under circumstances where the mothers life could be in danger, then once again one should consider the life of the mother first, at least I know I would. Even people that have had abortions did not want to have one, but that is the burden they carry not anyone else. That is the essence of pro choice, to leave the choice up to the individual. I would love to see a world where there was no place for abortion, but that world does not currently exist. People have sex and take precautions but only abstinence is 100%, taking that into consideration one can easily see people will find a way to not have an unwanted pregnancy complete to term. If you think abortions are wrong then dont have sex and dont get pregnant unless you want a child, but the point of pro choice is to let the individual make the choice for themselves. Besides all the women whom ever have had an abortion were also once a fetus worth protecting themselves. Their predicament should not be the end of all sympathy and understanding for them.How is a Fetus not a child? THis is in response to most of the posts regarding this. I honestly don't care that you think Murder is sanctionable, I posted my opinion, and you deemed it necessary to analyze and attempt to refute it.
Millions of unborn children die every year around the world due to abortion. But, what do you care? As long as the mother has the choice to live.
[QUOTE="binpink"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]you've actually made her argument for her with your responses in this thread....alexside1
Some people refuse to address the issue, as you might've seen.
The choice is between women's personal freedom/reproductive rights and a fetus. Pro-lifers choose the fetus. How that's a one sided generalization, I'll never know.
I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?They are equal in my opinion. The fetus is living, so is the mother. They both deserve the right to live.
Isn't letting a bunch of homeless people die, when we have the money but allocate it to wars and killing people, kind of murder in itself :SKukicAdo
Sort of. But you aren't actively butchering them. Most homeless people can get jobs, and live off of welfare potentially.
[QUOTE="KukicAdo"]Isn't letting a bunch of homeless people die, when we have the money but allocate it to wars and killing people, kind of murder in itself :SSnipes_2
Sort of. But you aren't actively butchering them. Most homeless people can get jobs, and live off of welfare potentially.
Numerous homeless people have sevre underlying mental disorders such as schizophrenia, which costs money to be treated for, which they do not have, and as such cannot get a job.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="KukicAdo"]Isn't letting a bunch of homeless people die, when we have the money but allocate it to wars and killing people, kind of murder in itself :SPixel-Pirate
Sort of. But you aren't actively butchering them. Most homeless people can get jobs, and live off of welfare potentially.
Numerous homeless people have sevre underlying mental disorders such as schizophrenia, which costs money to be treated for, which they do not have, and as such cannot get a job.
Shouldn't it be the governments responsibility to provide healthcare for these people?[QUOTE="binpink"][QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]you've actually made her argument for her with your responses in this thread....alexside1
Some people refuse to address the issue, as you might've seen.
The choice is between women's personal freedom/reproductive rights and a fetus. Pro-lifers choose the fetus. How that's a one sided generalization, I'll never know.
I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?Though you did not ask it to me, yes, I do think the womans life is far more important. The woman is proven to have feelings, to be human, to feel emotion. The fetus is not proven to be any of these things. The woman likely affects far more people on a positive emotional state (having loved ones, etc), the fetus does not aside from the one carrying it and the father.
The womans life is far more important to me.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Sort of. But you aren't actively butchering them. Most homeless people can get jobs, and live off of welfare potentially.
KukicAdo
Numerous homeless people have sevre underlying mental disorders such as schizophrenia, which costs money to be treated for, which they do not have, and as such cannot get a job.
Shouldn't it be the governments responsibility to provide healthcare for these people?Yes. It SHOULD be. Problem is either A. They do not qualify for any current special things like medicare or B. Are so deeply disturbed that they themselves cannot apply for such things.
[QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"][QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Pro-Choice is the same as Pro-Abortion. You promote Abortion. The "Right To Choose" is what you're giving women. The Right to choose if their child lives or dies, which is not up to them to decide.alexside1Says who? Do you support killing children or that was a lousy joke? Neither.
[QUOTE="alexside1"]I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?Pixel-Pirate
Though you did not ask it to me, yes, I do think the womans life is far more important. The woman is proven to have feelings, to be human, to feel emotion. The fetus is not proven to be any of these things. The woman likely affects far more people on a positive emotional state (having loved ones, etc), the fetus does not aside from the one carrying it and the father.
The womans life is far more important to me.
What about the fetus right to live? "The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" Do you have any evidence to prove that claim of yours?
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="alexside1"]I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?alexside1
Though you did not ask it to me, yes, I do think the womans life is far more important. The woman is proven to have feelings, to be human, to feel emotion. The fetus is not proven to be any of these things. The woman likely affects far more people on a positive emotional state (having loved ones, etc), the fetus does not aside from the one carrying it and the father.
The womans life is far more important to me.
What about the fetus right to live? "The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" Do you have any evidence to prove that claim of yours?
lol...he isn't claiming anything. -> He doesn't need proof, you do.[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
Though you did not ask it to me, yes, I do think the womans life is far more important. The woman is proven to have feelings, to be human, to feel emotion. The fetus is not proven to be any of these things. The woman likely affects far more people on a positive emotional state (having loved ones, etc), the fetus does not aside from the one carrying it and the father.
The womans life is far more important to me.
smc91352
What about the fetus right to live? "The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" Do you have any evidence to prove that claim of yours?
lol...he isn't claiming anything. -> He doesn't need proof, you do. /facepalm. Oh lord were do I begin?[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="alexside1"]lol...he isn't claiming anything. -> He doesn't need proof, you do. /facepalm. Oh lord were do I begin? begin somewhere; proof is needed to show that they have emotions etc. Do you have any proof? I'm not even arguing, I'm just pointing out that you are commiting a fallacy.What about the fetus right to live? "The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" Do you have any evidence to prove that claim of yours?
alexside1
/facepalm. Oh lord were do I begin? begin somewhere; proof is needed to show that they have emotions etc. Do you have any proof? I'm not even arguing, I'm just pointing out that you are fallacious. That not fallacious, THIS is fallacious[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="smc91352"]lol...he isn't claiming anything. -> He doesn't need proof, you do.smc91352
A claims about x
x hasn't been proven yet.
Therefore x is false.
I didn't made any claims. She/he did and I am asking evidence from her/him.
begin somewhere; proof is needed to show that they have emotions etc. Do you have any proof? I'm not even arguing, I'm just pointing out that you are fallacious. That not fallacious, THIS is fallacious[QUOTE="smc91352"]
[QUOTE="alexside1"] /facepalm. Oh lord were do I begin?alexside1
A claims about x
x hasn't been proven yet.
Therefore x is false.
I didn't made any claims. She/he did and I am asking evidence from her/him.
He did not claim ANYTHING.He said there is no evidence something is a certain way.
He did not things were in fact the opposite. He didn't say that fetus-es DON'T have emotions.
He just said that he doesn't know of any evidence that they have feelings.
If you have this evidence, please enlighten us because we'll listen and you can end this debate.
I am not arguing in this debate, I just had to call foul when you asked for proof of some claim he never made.
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="alexside1"]I have a question for you, do you value a woman life more than those of the fetus?alexside1
Though you did not ask it to me, yes, I do think the womans life is far more important. The woman is proven to have feelings, to be human, to feel emotion. The fetus is not proven to be any of these things. The woman likely affects far more people on a positive emotional state (having loved ones, etc), the fetus does not aside from the one carrying it and the father.
The womans life is far more important to me.
What about the fetus right to live? "The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" Do you have any evidence to prove that claim of yours?
No, I do not have proof. Now, do you have proof that the fetus is any of those things? Just because I do not have proof of something does not mean it's untrue.
That not fallacious, THIS is fallacious[QUOTE="alexside1"]
[QUOTE="smc91352"] begin somewhere; proof is needed to show that they have emotions etc. Do you have any proof? I'm not even arguing, I'm just pointing out that you are fallacious.
smc91352
A claims about x
x hasn't been proven yet.
Therefore x is false.
I didn't made any claims. She/he did and I am asking evidence from her/him.
He did not claim ANYTHING.He said there is no evidence something is a certain way.
He did not things were in fact the opposite. He didn't say that fetus-es DON'T have emotions.
He just said that he doesn't know of any evidence that they have feelings.
If you have this evidence, please enlighten us because we'll listen and you can end this debate.
I am not arguing in this debate, I just had to call foul when you asked for proof of some claim he never made.
"The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
[QUOTE="alexside1"]Will you guys quit shift the bruden of proof on me.
smc91352
huh? In fact I'd be perfectly happy keeping abortion legal. So far I don't see why there is any reason to criminalize it and I have only the responsibility to listen to people's arguments.
What are you talking about? I thought you said your not going to argue in this thread.
"The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
alexside1
Well, obviously there is a bit of fault in that statement; but the way you shut that down is by posting some proof.
I guess I overlooked the structure of the sentence mostly because I too know of no proof.
And I guess its just the objectivist in me that made me speak out. I dunno.
[QUOTE="smc91352"][QUOTE="alexside1"]
Will you guys quit shift the bruden of proof on me.
alexside1
huh? In fact I'd be perfectly happy keeping abortion legal. So far I don't see why there is any reason to criminalize it and I have only the responsibility to listen to people's arguments.
What are you talking about? I thought you said your not going to argue in this thread.
I don't see any argument there. :|[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"] Neither.Asthma_Is_SexySaying "Says who?" is BS, it makes you sound that you are a smartass. No, I'm serious. Who says that a woman is not allowed control over her own body? Who said I shouldn't kill people. Who said I shouldn't lie to people.(I can play this game too you know) Besides technically you can't control all of your body. ( Things like heart rate, digestion, etc)
No, I'm serious. Who says that a woman is not allowed control over her own body? Who said I shouldn't kill people. Who said I shouldn't lie to people. Besides technically you can't control all of your body. ( Things like heart rate, digestion, etc) No, but for the things you do have control over, you should be allowed to exert said control.[QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"][QUOTE="alexside1"] Saying "Says who?" is BS, it makes you sound that you are a smartass.alexside1
[QUOTE="alexside1"]Who said I shouldn't kill people. Who said I shouldn't lie to people. Besides technically you can't control all of your body. ( Things like heart rate, digestion, etc) No, but for the things you do have control over, you should be allowed to exert said control. If I control every population in America right now. Would it be ok for me to kill them all?[QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"] No, I'm serious. Who says that a woman is not allowed control over her own body?Asthma_Is_Sexy
He did not claim ANYTHING.[QUOTE="smc91352"]
[QUOTE="alexside1"] That not fallacious, THIS is fallacious
A claims about x
x hasn't been proven yet.
Therefore x is false.
I didn't made any claims. She/he did and I am asking evidence from her/him.
alexside1
He said there is no evidence something is a certain way.
He did not things were in fact the opposite. He didn't say that fetus-es DON'T have emotions.
He just said that he doesn't know of any evidence that they have feelings.
If you have this evidence, please enlighten us because we'll listen and you can end this debate.
I am not arguing in this debate, I just had to call foul when you asked for proof of some claim he never made.
"The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
If there is proof then you'd give it. The fact I cannot prove it does not mean your version is true. If I asked you to prove the president isn't a extradimensional shape shifting lizard, and you couldn't prove that, that doesn't make him a shapeshifting lizard.
You're trying to get him to prove a negative."The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
alexside1
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
[QUOTE="KukicAdo"]Isn't letting a bunch of homeless people die, when we have the money but allocate it to wars and killing people, kind of murder in itself :SPixel-Pirate
Sort of. But you aren't actively butchering them. Most homeless people can get jobs, and live off of welfare potentially.
Numerous homeless people have sevre underlying mental disorders such as schizophrenia, which costs money to be treated for, which they do not have, and as such cannot get a job.
Hence, the MOST in my post.
[QUOTE="alexside1"]
[QUOTE="smc91352"]He did not claim ANYTHING.
He said there is no evidence something is a certain way.
He did not things were in fact the opposite. He didn't say that fetus-es DON'T have emotions.
He just said that he doesn't know of any evidence that they have feelings.
If you have this evidence, please enlighten us because we'll listen and you can end this debate.
I am not arguing in this debate, I just had to call foul when you asked for proof of some claim he never made.
Pixel-Pirate
"The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
If there is proof then you'd give it. The fact I cannot prove it does not mean your version is true. If I asked you to prove the president isn't a extradimensional shape shifting lizard, and you couldn't prove that, that doesn't make him a shapeshifting lizard.
You also can not prove that I have a pillow right next to me. Dose that mean it doesn't exist? Besides, if you made a claim about something you should back it up. Your example is a bad example, because they are evidences that leans in the opposite direction. Which apparently you haven't show any evidences that the fetus is not a living thing.Read this book:http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3374
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94058/perspectives_on_abortion_a_fetus_is.html?cat=9 - Here's some information to refute your argument, again. I think this is the third site I posted refuting the fact that a Fetus is not living. Still nothing to prove it's not a human and it's not living.
Read this book:http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3374
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94058/perspectives_on_abortion_a_fetus_is.html?cat=9 - Here's some information to refute your argument, again. I think this is the third site I posted refuting the fact that a Fetus is not living. Still nothing to prove it's not a human and it's not living.
Snipes_2
Neurological View
"Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life."
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
There are thousands os websites with similar answers. The point of that article is that different cultures believe life begins at different stages.
[QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"][QUOTE="alexside1"] Who said I shouldn't kill people. Who said I shouldn't lie to people. Besides technically you can't control all of your body. ( Things like heart rate, digestion, etc)No, but for the things you do have control over, you should be allowed to exert said control. If I control every population in America right now. Would it be ok for me to kill them all? No, unless the entire population of the USA were somehow a parasitic entity in your body.alexside1
[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]
[QUOTE="alexside1"]
"The fetus is not proven to be any of these things" IS a claim and shifting the burden of proof isn't going to cut it. What are you? A debate referee?
alexside1
If there is proof then you'd give it. The fact I cannot prove it does not mean your version is true. If I asked you to prove the president isn't a extradimensional shape shifting lizard, and you couldn't prove that, that doesn't make him a shapeshifting lizard.
You also can not prove that I have a pillow right next to me. Dose that mean it doesn't exist? Besides, if you made a claim about something you should back it up. Your example is a bad example, because they are evidences that leans in the opposite direction. Which apparently you haven't show any evidences that the fetus is not a living thing.If there was proof to the opposite that was unbiased, you would show it to me. The fact you keep demanding me to prove a claim I never made (I simply said there was no proof that a fetus is a human being. If there is, I need to see proof) makes me believe you do not have proof either. I have admitted I have no proof, but you are dancing around saying "You have to prove it! I don't wanna!".
And if I was next to you and a pillow was there, I could prove the pillow was there because it is infact there. What you seem to want to do is prove that a pillow (in this case the fetus) is a couch (in this case a human being) which is harder to do.
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Read this book:http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3374
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94058/perspectives_on_abortion_a_fetus_is.html?cat=9 - Here's some information to refute your argument, again. I think this is the third site I posted refuting the fact that a Fetus is not living. Still nothing to prove it's not a human and it's not living.
BumFluff122
Neurological View
"Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life."
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
There are thousands os websites with similar answers. The point of that article is that different cultures believe life begins at different stages.
So, what you saying is that nether sides of the issue can't prove/disprove the issue on what ever or not the fedus is a living human being. That can be problematic, because in order for rights of the woman to be ok. One must assume that the fedus is not living, while the rights of the fedus in order to be true, one must also assume that the fedus is a living thing. Well apparntly this appears to be a stalemate untill we offically decide on what ever or not the fedus is alive or dead.
If I control every population in America right now. Would it be ok for me to kill them all? No, unless the entire population of the USA were somehow a parasitic entity in your body. What the differences? I still control them do I?[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="Asthma_Is_Sexy"] No, but for the things you do have control over, you should be allowed to exert said control.Asthma_Is_Sexy
[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Read this book:http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3374
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94058/perspectives_on_abortion_a_fetus_is.html?cat=9 - Here's some information to refute your argument, again. I think this is the third site I posted refuting the fact that a Fetus is not living. Still nothing to prove it's not a human and it's not living.
alexside1
Neurological View
"Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life."
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
There are thousands os websites with similar answers. The point of that article is that different cultures believe life begins at different stages.
So, what you saying is that nether sides of the issue can't prove/disprove the issue on what ever or not the fedus is a living human being. That can be problematic, because in order for rights of the woman to be ok. One must assume that the fedus is not living, while the rights of the fedus in order to be true, one must also assume that the fedus is a living thing. Well apparntly this appears to be a stalemate untill we offically decide on what ever or not the fedus is alive or dead.
There are different opinons and views on this very question. IT's not going to get answered in a Gamespot forum. As I stated before, different cultures think of it differently. And even scientists and psychologists think of it differently. Some countries in the world count their birthdate as they day they were conceived. Others, they day they popped out. A former friend of mine spent her birth and the first 9 months of her life in her moms stomach. If she was in a culture that counted the birth date from the end of the pregnancy she would be 9 months younger. However, if you want to take a serious scientific step in making your decision, as many here have been trying to do, the date of birth is the same day as that which gets taken away upon death, that being the EEG. And as stated above doctors and physicians can tell us that a recognizable EEG pattern begins in the embryo between 24 and 27 weeks.[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]
Read this book:http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/cup_detail.taf?ti_id=3374
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/94058/perspectives_on_abortion_a_fetus_is.html?cat=9 - Here's some information to refute your argument, again. I think this is the third site I posted refuting the fact that a Fetus is not living. Still nothing to prove it's not a human and it's not living.
alexside1
Neurological View
"Although most cultures identify the qualities of humanity as different from other living organisms, there is also a universal view that all forms of life on earth are finite. Implicit in the later view is the reality that all life has both a beginning and an end, usually identified as some form of death. The debate surrounding the exact moment marking the beginning of a human life contrasts the certainty and consistency with which the instant of death is described. Contemporary American (and Japanese) society defines death as the loss of the pattern produced by a cerebral electroencephalogram (EEG). If life and death are based upon the same standard of measurement, then the beginning of human life should be recognized as the time when a fetus acquires a recognizable EEG pattern. This acquisition occurs approximately 24- 27 weeks after the conception of the fetus and is the basis for the neurological view of the beginning of human life."
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
There are thousands os websites with similar answers. The point of that article is that different cultures believe life begins at different stages.
So, what you saying is that nether sides of the issue can't prove/disprove the issue on what ever or not the fedus is a living human being. That can be problematic, because in order for rights of the woman to be ok. One must assume that the fedus is not living, while the rights of the fedus in order to be true, one must also assume that the fedus is a living thing. Well apparntly this appears to be a stalemate untill we offically decide on what ever or not the fedus is alive or dead.
Stalemate? No, you must prove that some action cause something bad to happen and then [I will support] a law [that] will make it illegal to do that action.
I have not seen proof of anything bad happening and therefore am not supporting any law against abortion.
If you wanna tell people it MIGHT be killing, that's ok, but untill you prove it, I will not support any law and hope no one does (just as a symbol support reason, civil liberties, etc.).
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment