The majority of people in the US Pro-Life for the first time in 15 years.

Let me straighten this out - a FETUS is not a child. It has never lived. It's waiting to live.

To quote theokhoth:

"1. Homeostasis:

2. Organization:

3. Metabolism:

4. Growth:

5. Adaptation:

6. Response to stimuli:

7. Reproduction:

http://www.una.edu/faculty/pgdavison/BI%20101/Overview%20Fall%202004.htm"

I think it is pretty obvious that they are alive.

Last time I checked, fetuses have no ability to reproduce. The characteristics of a living organism aren't something you can pick and choose; the organism needs to fit all characteristics.

"Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells"
So, yes, they can reproduce.

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or not - people deserve the CHOICE.

Why does the fetus not have a choice?

Because the fetus can't think for itself.

If you ask a newborn baby if it wants to live, how will it respond.
Being helpless doesn't give someone else the right to kill you.

Pro-life people will still place kids up for adoption, the world will run as normal.

The world will continue to run as normal if 1 billion people were murdered in a single day. Saying the world will continue normally is an awful reason to supporting abortion.

While you do make a fine point, I don't think that's what she meant... But I'm not one who can say for certain.

I don't know what else she could have meant.

By making it illegal you just encourage back-street abortions where women die.

They are making the choice to get illegal abortions... Nobody is forcing anything on anyone. We already discussed this.

No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion with the way things are now, so what's the problem?

Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?

And if you still want to make it illegal, what would your punishment be for the women that have them?

Hmm... Jail for murder.

abortion -the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.

For further reading, see LIFE.

murder - to kill (another human) unlawfully

Of course abortion is not murder, right now. If they made it illegal, it could be ****fied as murder.

scorch-62

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"][QUOTE="McJugga"]Not true.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

I dont get how someone could be "pro killing unborn babies". It blows my brain when people talk about all the death in Darfur, and then go on a pro choice rant.

sSubZerOo

Bush enjoys the death of innocent people as long as he gains on it.

[QUOTE="magnax1"]

I dont get how someone could be "pro killing unborn babies". It blows my brain when people talk about all the death in Darfur, and then go on a pro choice rant.

sSubZerOo

Some animals can have emotions that are greater than other animals, does this make them human than other animals?

Having one or two human characteristics does not a human make.

It doesn't make them human. But if you define humans by their emotions, then the more emotions that an animal has, the more human it is.

So

So humans can't be defined by their emotions or thought.

The answer to both of these questions is no. This is because human beings are not defined by our thought capabilities.

Ok What defines us? opposable thumbs?

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Therefore, fetuses are human.

Ok, if humans are nothing more than a member of a member of a taxanomic group, with no other defining characteristics why should we care whether or not we abort fetuses.

We do have other characteristics, they just don't determine whether we are human or not. We should care about killing fetuses since they are also humans and should be entitled to the same rights as a born baby.

htekemerald

So do you think that Obama has never found a case in which he supported the lady getting an aboriton. I am sure there is, and since he supported an abortion, he is pro-abortion. You are trying to make it sound like he doesn't want anyone to get an abortion, but he does. Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] So do you think that Obama has never found a case in which he supported the lady getting an aboriton. I am sure there is, and since he supported an abortion, he is pro-abortion. You are trying to make it sound like he doesn't want anyone to get an abortion, but he does. -Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] So do you think that Obama has never found a case in which he supported the lady getting an aboriton. I am sure there is, and since he supported an abortion, he is pro-abortion. You are trying to make it sound like he doesn't want anyone to get an abortion, but he does. -Sun_Tzu-

Oh no, it's perfectly logical. Think about it

That's awesome. However, I'm still very happy Obama is president.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="magnax1"]

I dont get how someone could be "pro killing unborn babies". It blows my brain when people talk about all the death in Darfur, and then go on a pro choice rant.

Jacobistheman

I second TC's motion. Bush should not be the representative for pro-life, tbh. War is wrong, so is abortion (imo, of course).

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] So do you think that Obama has never found a case in which he supported the lady getting an aboriton. I am sure there is, and since he supported an abortion, he is pro-abortion. You are trying to make it sound like he doesn't want anyone to get an abortion, but he does. Jacobistheman

And you also say that supporting a woman's decision to get an abortion equates being pro-abortion. That's the equivalent of me supporting someone's decision to say the Mets suck (they don't) and the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (they aren't), and then you saying that I think that the Mets suck (again, they don't. They are awesome) and that the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (again, they aren't. They are the Devil incarnate). My support for the ability to decide does not equate support for the decision itself, from a qualitative standpoint.

"Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells"
So, yes, they can reproduce.

That's asexual reproduction. A fetus doesn't divide to make two fetuses.

If you ask a newborn baby if it wants to live, how will it respond.
Being helpless doesn't give someone else the right to kill you.

You asked why the fetus doesn't have a choice. Helplessness is irrelevent.

I don't know what else she could have meant.

When I first read it, I understood it as something along the lines of "Legality wouldn't matter, because adoption agencies will still be used by people who oppose abortion."

Let's say that they legalized murder, as in you can kill absolutely anyone and not be punished by the law. Nobody is forcing you to murder, so why not have murder legal?

In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?

Of course abortion is not murder, right now. If they made it illegal, it could be ****fied as murder.

1: "If..."
2: Could be =/= would be.McJugga

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] So because you assume that Obama has supported some woman's decision to get an abortion, it is now a fact, and because of that fact he is now pro-abortion? That does not flow logically at all, for a number of reasons.-Sun_Tzu-

And you also say that supporting a woman's decision to get an abortion equates being pro-abortion. That's the equivalent of me supporting someone's decision to say the Mets suck (they don't) and the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (they aren't), and then you saying that I think that the Mets suck (again, they don't. They are awesome) and that the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (again, they aren't. They are the Devil incarnate). My support for the ability to decide does not equate support for the decision itself, from a qualitative standpoint.

Take that logic and stick it up your ***!

Dark-Sithious

Here's a few articles with insight into Obama's stance on abortion and voting record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_voting_record_on_aborti_1.html

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] It doesn't flow logically? How does it not flow logically that if he supported abortion he is pro-abortion? Jacobistheman

If Obama is encouraging abortions, he would be giving some type of benefit for the abortion. But thing is that he isn't. Therefore, Obama is not pro-abortion.

That's asexual reproduction. A fetus doesn't divide to make two fetuses.

It can still reproduce, meanining it is alive.

You asked why the fetus doesn't have a choice. Helplessness is irrelevent.

You said the fetus couldn't think for itself, which is why it doesn't have a choice.A newbowrn baby could not either.

When I first read it, I understood it as something along the lines of "Legality wouldn't matter, because adoption agencies will still be used by people who oppose abortion."

Could be...

In a hypothetical universe where murder is legal, would whether or not the act takes place be left completely up to the moral standpoint of the individual?

Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.

1: "If..."
2: Could be =/= would be.

1. Of course it is "if" they haven't made abortion illegal yet...
2. Yes it "could be" ****fied as if made illegal, but they also may make a separate law for it. By the way she asked what I would make the law be.

scorch-62

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] It doesn't flow logically? How does it not flow logically that if he supported abortion he is pro-abortion? Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

Some animals can have emotions that are greater than other animals, does this make them human than other animals?

Having one or two human characteristics does not a human make.

It doesn't make them human. But if you define humans by their emotions, then the more emotions that an animal has, the more human it is.

So

So humans can't be defined by their emotions or thought.

The answer to both of these questions is no. This is because human beings are not defined by our thought capabilities.

Ok What defines us? opposable thumbs?

1. A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Therefore, fetuses are human.

Ok, if humans are nothing more than a member of a member of a taxanomic group, with no other defining characteristics why should we care whether or not we abort fetuses.

We do have other characteristics, they just don't determine whether we are human or not. We should care about killing fetuses since they are also humans and should be entitled to the same rights as a born baby.

McJugga

and yes animals have features which we describe as human see "personification"

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"] He respects and supports choice for women. That is not pro-abortion, that is pro-choice. Pro-abortion would mean ENCOURAGING abortions, which isn't happening and hopefully never will.Suddenstriker52

If Obama is encouraging abortions, he would be giving some type of benefit for the abortion. But thing is that he isn't. Therefore, Obama is not pro-abortion.

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Did you even read what I said earlier. If he supports an abortion he is ENCOURAGING an abortion isn't he, yes he is to answer that for you. You can support the right, but that is not what we are talking about. tofu-lion91

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] It doesn't flow logically? How does it not flow logically that if he supported abortion he is pro-abortion? Jacobistheman

And you also say that supporting a woman's decision to get an abortion equates being pro-abortion. That's the equivalent of me supporting someone's decision to say the Mets suck (they don't) and the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (they aren't), and then you saying that I think that the Mets suck (again, they don't. They are awesome) and that the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (again, they aren't. They are the Devil incarnate). My support for the ability to decide does not equate support for the decision itself, from a qualitative standpoint.

Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"] He respects and supports choice for women. That is not pro-abortion, that is pro-choice. Pro-abortion would mean ENCOURAGING abortions, which isn't happening and hopefully never will.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"]tofu-lion91

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Did you even read what I said earlier. If he supports an abortion he is ENCOURAGING an abortion isn't he, yes he is to answer that for you. You can support the right, but that is not what we are talking about. Jacobistheman

Jacob, I'm glad to see you're back. Now, if you wouldn't mind responding to my post:

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I think those on this thread, particularly the TC, will find this article very interesting:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/more-about-unbearable-lightness-of.html

chessmaster1989

Well, under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. However...

Here's another piece:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html

Oh, by the way, the site is not just "some random site." I'd be very surprised if you hadn't heard of fivethirtyeight.com, considering that Nate Silver is widely renowned for creating a statistical model that more or less predicted the last presidential election with surprising accuracy. So, yeah, actually, I'm going to trust this second post with Nate's statistical analysis (he doesn't yet talk about the latest Gallup Poll, but I'm sure he will) over a poll, thanks.

Oh, and, by the way, the author of the first article is Andrew Gelman, who happens to be a professor of political science and statistics at Columbia University. I don't think I'd exactly call him "some random person" ;).

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/

[QUOTE="tofu-lion91"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Did you even read what I said earlier. If he supports an abortion he is ENCOURAGING an abortion isn't he, yes he is to answer that for you. You can support the right, but that is not what we are talking about. Jacobistheman

Wait, what? Obama had an abortion? :?

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] News flash this was already brought up in the 3 DEBATES BETWEEN McCAIN and OBAMA.. Yet again he specifically explained his point of view so much so, that McCain never brought it up nor ran it as a running point.. Seriously there are many things some one can logically criticize Obama for on things they do not agree with, THIS is not one of them by claiming he is pro abortion.. You are hopeless bias neo conservative that clearly can not be debated on this, even when Obama him self full well explained his whole view including that event where he felt the law would violated Roe V Wade.. You just keep on seeing that he is some baby eating skeletor.sSubZerOo

It can still reproduce, meanining it is alive.

No, it can't reproduce. When I see/hear of a "male" fetus getting it on with a "female" fetus to make a "baby" fetus, I'll agree, but until then, no. And for the record, I, too, just had a HORRIBLE mental image of that.

You said the fetus couldn't think for itself, which is why it doesn't have a choice.A newbowrn baby could not either.

Yes. And newborn babies are irrelevent.

Yes, just like having an illegal abortion is up to the mother.

Now if only abortions were illegal... but they aren't.

Yes it "could be" ****fied as if made illegal, but they also may make a separate law for it. By the way she asked what I would make the law be.

I'm fully aware of that. I'm taking your fantasy world and applying it to reality. The two realities just don't mix.McJugga

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Well first of all, you make the assumption that Obama has supported a woman's decision to get an abortion, and then proceeded to treat that assumption as if it were a fact, when in actuality it is baseless, and conclude that he is pro-abortion.

And you also say that supporting a woman's decision to get an abortion equates being pro-abortion. That's the equivalent of me supporting someone's decision to say the Mets suck (they don't) and the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (they aren't), and then you saying that I think that the Mets suck (again, they don't. They are awesome) and that the Phillies are the greatest team on the planet (again, they aren't. They are the Devil incarnate). My support for the ability to decide does not equate support for the decision itself, from a qualitative standpoint.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="tofu-lion91"] Supporting the choice to have an abortion =/= encouraging abortion I've already said that pro-choicers believe in sex ed and preventing pregnancy, and restrictions to ensure abortion isn't used as a method of contraception. That is definately NOT encouraging abortion.chessmaster1989

Wait, what? Obama had an abortion? :?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] So do you really think that McCain would come out and accuse Obama of being Pro-abortion, that would be political suicide beucause he wouldn't get any votes from any pro-choice or pro-abortion people. Do you think that Obama would come out and say he supports abortion, that would be political suicide also so he, in fact, didn't explain his whole view. In case you didn't get it, the answer is no. Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Yes supporting the right=/= encouraging abortion, but obama has the abortion not just the right.Jacobistheman

Wait, what? Obama had an abortion? :?

As you say, you have no proof, nor evidence of any kind, so I think your opinion here isn't exactly credible ;).

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] So do you really think that McCain would come out and accuse Obama of being Pro-abortion, that would be political suicide beucause he wouldn't get any votes from any pro-choice or pro-abortion people. Do you think that Obama would come out and say he supports abortion, that would be political suicide also so he, in fact, didn't explain his whole view. In case you didn't get it, the answer is no. Jacobistheman

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] So basically what your trying to say is a baseless gut reaction on the thinnest line of sad speculation of a clearly bias mind.. Guess what ever you so called BELIEVE, you will need to present more real evidence than one that was already explain probable.. Because its his word against yours, and I am sorry but most rational people are gonna go with his because he was able to provide a reasonable explaination. When you have provided none.-Sun_Tzu-

There's disturbing naked pictures of Obamas mom on the internet

/Thread

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Well you cannot honestly tell me you don't think that obama has disagreed with every abortion and has supported none of them. Second of all for a better example than that baseball (that is honestly a terrible example) one lets say that I commit a felony, I am a felon. If I support an abortion, i am pro-abortion.Archon_basic

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Wait, what? Obama had an abortion? :?

chessmaster1989

As you say, you have no proof, nor evidence of any kind, so I think your opinion here isn't exactly credible ;).

Not at all. I'm debating more than semantics. Jacobistheman is under the impression that Obama encourages abortion. There is a stark difference between supporting the right to decide, and encouraging a specific decision.

-Sun_Tzu-

Jacob, I'm glad to see you're back. Now, if you wouldn't mind responding to my post:

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] And I am going to listen to some random person writing a random post on some random website over a nationally known poll? chessmaster1989

Well, under normal circumstances I'd agree with you. However...

Here's another piece:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/is-public-opinion-changing-on-abortion.html

Oh, by the way, the site is not just "some random site." I'd be very surprised if you hadn't heard of fivethirtyeight.com, considering that Nate Silver is widely renowned for creating a statistical model that more or less predicted the last presidential election with surprising accuracy. So, yeah, actually, I'm going to trust this second post with Nate's statistical analysis (he doesn't yet talk about the latest Gallup Poll, but I'm sure he will) over a poll, thanks.

Oh, and, by the way, the author of the first article is Andrew Gelman, who happens to be a professor of political science and statistics at Columbia University. I don't think I'd exactly call him "some random person" ;).

http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/

Jacob, I am still awaiting a reply. I have posted this, reposted it, and am now bumping it. I have also pm'd you it. If you do not respond, I will assume that you concede that these analyses are viable, and that the Gallup Poll is at the very least questionable.

since you can't do that my argument it correct.Jacobistheman

] You still haven't explained why Obama is creating sex education programs that aim to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, how he is giving more financial support to lower class pregnant women who are unsure if they would be able to support a child, his desire to create more of an incentive to adopt, and his wanting to expand adoption rights. Those are all to the contrary of his alleged "pro-abortion" position.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] Sorry, I meant to say supported the abortion, but I would not be surprised if Obama, by Obama I mean the girl he got pregnant, had an abortion but I have no proof. Jacobistheman

As you say, you have no proof, nor evidence of any kind, so I think your opinion here isn't exactly credible ;).

Speculation of any kind is not credible if there is no evidence to support it.

[QUOTE="Jacobistheman"] since you can't do that my argument it correct.-Sun_Tzu-