With Regards to Abortion, Whose Rights are More Important: Fetuses or Women?

Exactly. Thank you for reiterrating my point. Really, it wasn't even my point, just an anecdote.

Manly-manly-man

It doesn't hurt, so it's fine to kill them?

Good-bye poor Ashlyn.

Even though it DOES hurt, as I have shown several times. . . .

Gotta go.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........ Huh what does this have to do anything witht he body when we are talking about the mind? No the body senses the touch.. When some one uses a reflex hammer on your knee you involuntarly kick.. Another example is at a young age a boys testisticles will shoot up into them, if a foriegn biological thing slaps any where near them such as the calf near the crouch.. The person has no choice in it, the body does it all by it self as a defense mechnism reflex.. There are many reactions that your concious mind has nothing to do with. Sneezing is another one..

When it gets cold, my body naturally starts shaking trying to produce heat.. I have little to no control in stopping or starting this.

Dracargen

None of this can happen if the child isn't so underdeveloped that his brain isn't receiving signals from the body. . .

Thats not the point of the argument now is it? We are trying to point out concious thought and awareness.. With out that the person is no better then a vegetable.. I was pointing out that certain primitive parts of the brain (the subconcious) are in action, but this has nothing to do with the concious part of it.. Meaning the baby may not be really feeling pain what so ever, but giving a unconcious reaction.

[QUOTE="bobaban"]

He meant sentient. You should look it up if you don't know what it means. If you believe a bunch of cells are alive, you should be crucifying yourself for washing your hands with soap because you're commiting genocide for those millions of bacteria.

Dracargen

Nobody would argue that cells aren't alive.:|

In alive he probably means something that has a right to live because it has the capacity to be sentient given it's current ability.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Exactly. Thank you for reiterrating my point. Really, it wasn't even my point, just an anecdote.

Dracargen

It doesn't hurt, so it's fine to kill them?

Good-bye poor Ashlyn.

Even though it DOES hurt, as I have shown several times. . . .

Gotta go.

That wasn't my point, btw. Also, she is self conscious, so your argument is pointless.

The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.Mr_sprinkles

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Exactly. Thank you for reiterrating my point. Really, it wasn't even my point, just an anecdote.

Dracargen

It doesn't hurt, so it's fine to kill them?

Good-bye poor Ashlyn.

Even though it DOES hurt, as I have shown several times. . . .

Gotta go.

One has nothing to do with the other.. The kindgardener under her own power is self aware, and concious.. With ability to reason and think.. The fetus as yet has shown neither, and completely depends on the mother/womb it self.. As said earlier I am not completely for abortion like others I think its fair to say that a abortion in the first trimester, seems to be a fair compromise between personal liberties and the POTENTIAL human life that may come from the fetus.

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.its_me_

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

Science doesn't say life starts at contraception, and this isn't about ending life, it is about the morality of the ending the life, and the life itself. It's about weighing the importance of life, decided if all life is equal.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Exactly. Thank you for reiterrating my point. Really, it wasn't even my point, just an anecdote.

sSubZerOo

It doesn't hurt, so it's fine to kill them?

Good-bye poor Ashlyn.

Even though it DOES hurt, as I have shown several times. . . .

Gotta go.

One has nothing to do with the other.. The kindgardener under her own power is self aware, and concious.. With ability to reason and think.. The fetus as yet has shown neither, and completely depends on the mother/womb it self.. As said earlier I am not completely for abortion like others I think its fair to say that a abortion in the first trimester, seems to be a fair compromise between personal liberties and the POTENTIAL human life that may come from the fetus.

Agreed. I am absolutely for a time limit, late term abortions aren't morally acceptable in my mind.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........ Huh what does this have to do anything witht he body when we are talking about the mind? No the body senses the touch.. When some one uses a reflex hammer on your knee you involuntarly kick.. Another example is at a young age a boys testisticles will shoot up into them, if a foriegn biological thing slaps any where near them such as the calf near the crouch.. The person has no choice in it, the body does it all by it self as a defense mechnism reflex.. There are many reactions that your concious mind has nothing to do with. Sneezing is another one..

When it gets cold, my body naturally starts shaking trying to produce heat.. I have little to no control in stopping or starting this.

sSubZerOo

None of this can happen if the child isn't so underdeveloped that his brain isn't receiving signals from the body. . .

Thats not the point of the argument now is it? We are trying to point out concious thought and awareness.. With out that the person is no better then a vegetable.. I was pointing out that certain primitive parts of the brain (the subconcious) are in action, but this has nothing to do with the concious part of it.. Meaning the baby may not be really feeling pain what so ever, but giving a unconcious reaction.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

[QUOTE="its_me_"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.Manly-manly-man

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

Science doesn't say life starts at contraception, and this isn't about ending life, it is about the morality of the ending the life, and the life itself. It's about weighing the importance of life, decided if all life is equal.

I said conception, not contraception. The rest of what you just said makes no sense? It's moral to kill, when the victim has no say and has done nothing to anyone? And how is some life more important if all life is equal? That's a stupid thing to say.

[QUOTE="its_me_"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.Manly-manly-man

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

Science doesn't say life starts at contraception, and this isn't about ending life, it is about the morality of the ending the life, and the life itself. It's about weighing the importance of life, decided if all life is equal.

I said conception, not contraception. The rest of what you just said makes no sense. It's moral to kill, when the victim has no say and has done nothing to anyone? And how is some life more important if all life is equal? That's a stupid thing to say.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........ Huh what does this have to do anything witht he body when we are talking about the mind? No the body senses the touch.. When some one uses a reflex hammer on your knee you involuntarly kick.. Another example is at a young age a boys testisticles will shoot up into them, if a foriegn biological thing slaps any where near them such as the calf near the crouch.. The person has no choice in it, the body does it all by it self as a defense mechnism reflex.. There are many reactions that your concious mind has nothing to do with. Sneezing is another one..

When it gets cold, my body naturally starts shaking trying to produce heat.. I have little to no control in stopping or starting this.

its_me_

None of this can happen if the child isn't so underdeveloped that his brain isn't receiving signals from the body. . .

Thats not the point of the argument now is it? We are trying to point out concious thought and awareness.. With out that the person is no better then a vegetable.. I was pointing out that certain primitive parts of the brain (the subconcious) are in action, but this has nothing to do with the concious part of it.. Meaning the baby may not be really feeling pain what so ever, but giving a unconcious reaction.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

Thats a different case.. I honestly would base that on personal beliefs.. That if I were in that state, I would want to be let go.. And I WOULD NOT WANT MY SELF PARADED by numerous self rightous people around the country in that condition or state. Its great to feel that if there is a heaven and Shaivo is in it, that she feels truly embarrassed at such things.. I know I would. South Park episode (no matter how rediculous it sounds) made some very fine political points in the episode that was basically contributed to that event in time.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="its_me_"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.its_me_

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

Science doesn't say life starts at contraception, and this isn't about ending life, it is about the morality of the ending the life, and the life itself. It's about weighing the importance of life, decided if all life is equal.

I said conception, not contraception. The rest of what you just said makes no sense? It's moral to kill, when the victim has no say and has done nothing to anyone? And how is some life more important if all life is equal? That's a stupid thing to say.

I meant conception. And I think you sort of misread what I wrote. I didn't say it was moral, I said this is about the morality of the action. I also didn't say some life was more important and all life is equal, I said it's about decided on one or the other.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="its_me_"]

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.its_me_

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

Science doesn't say life starts at contraception, and this isn't about ending life, it is about the morality of the ending the life, and the life itself. It's about weighing the importance of life, decided if all life is equal.

I said conception, not contraception. The rest of what you just said makes no sense? It's moral to kill, when the victim has no say and has done nothing to anyone? And how is some life more important if all life is equal? That's a stupid thing to say.

I meant conception. And I think you sort of misread what I wrote. I didn't say it was moral, I said this is about the morality of the action. I also didn't say some life was more important and all life is equal, I said it's about decided on one or the other.

Edit: I maybe didn't type as clearly as I should've.

[QUOTE="its_me_"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........ Huh what does this have to do anything witht he body when we are talking about the mind? No the body senses the touch.. When some one uses a reflex hammer on your knee you involuntarly kick.. Another example is at a young age a boys testisticles will shoot up into them, if a foriegn biological thing slaps any where near them such as the calf near the crouch.. The person has no choice in it, the body does it all by it self as a defense mechnism reflex.. There are many reactions that your concious mind has nothing to do with. Sneezing is another one..

When it gets cold, my body naturally starts shaking trying to produce heat.. I have little to no control in stopping or starting this.

sSubZerOo

None of this can happen if the child isn't so underdeveloped that his brain isn't receiving signals from the body. . .

Thats not the point of the argument now is it? We are trying to point out concious thought and awareness.. With out that the person is no better then a vegetable.. I was pointing out that certain primitive parts of the brain (the subconcious) are in action, but this has nothing to do with the concious part of it.. Meaning the baby may not be really feeling pain what so ever, but giving a unconcious reaction.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

Thats a different case.. I honestly would base that on personal beliefs.. That if I were in that state, I would want to be let go.. And I WOULD NOT WANT MY SELF PARADED by numerous self rightous people around the country in that condition or state. Its great to feel that if there is a heaven and Shaivo is in it, that she feels truly embarrassed at such things.. I know I would. South Park episode (no matter how rediculous it sounds) made some very fine political points in the episode that was basically contributed to that event in time.

No, it's not a different case. Terry Shaivo regressed back to the point of being as aware and concious as a fetus. Be consistent. Don't bring up South Park, and then try to pull a bunch of irrelevant hypothetical and philosophical bull**** out of your ass when you're argued into a corner. Thanks for playing.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="its_me_"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

........ Huh what does this have to do anything witht he body when we are talking about the mind? No the body senses the touch.. When some one uses a reflex hammer on your knee you involuntarly kick.. Another example is at a young age a boys testisticles will shoot up into them, if a foriegn biological thing slaps any where near them such as the calf near the crouch.. The person has no choice in it, the body does it all by it self as a defense mechnism reflex.. There are many reactions that your concious mind has nothing to do with. Sneezing is another one..

When it gets cold, my body naturally starts shaking trying to produce heat.. I have little to no control in stopping or starting this.

its_me_

None of this can happen if the child isn't so underdeveloped that his brain isn't receiving signals from the body. . .

Thats not the point of the argument now is it? We are trying to point out concious thought and awareness.. With out that the person is no better then a vegetable.. I was pointing out that certain primitive parts of the brain (the subconcious) are in action, but this has nothing to do with the concious part of it.. Meaning the baby may not be really feeling pain what so ever, but giving a unconcious reaction.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

Thats a different case.. I honestly would base that on personal beliefs.. That if I were in that state, I would want to be let go.. And I WOULD NOT WANT MY SELF PARADED by numerous self rightous people around the country in that condition or state. Its great to feel that if there is a heaven and Shaivo is in it, that she feels truly embarrassed at such things.. I know I would. South Park episode (no matter how rediculous it sounds) made some very fine political points in the episode that was basically contributed to that event in time.

No, it's not a different case. Terry Shaivo regressed back to the point of being as aware and concious as a fetus. Be consistent. Don't bring up South Park, and then try to pull a bunch of irrelevant hypothetical and philosophical bull**** out of your ass when you're argued into a corner. Thanks for playing.

Argued into a corner? You said one thing, hardly an argument. And all of what he said is relevant to the case of Shaivo. Just for the record, not as an insult, how old are?

[QUOTE="Mr_sprinkles"]The foetus may have the right to life, but it does not have the right to use the mothers body.its_me_

Right...USING the body of the mother who CHOSE to have sex and KNEW the consequences of sex are pregnancy. Give me a break.

It's not even about rights. it's about life. Killing is killing. Science says life starts at conception, look it up. Abortion is the killing of an innocent child, and nothing less.

You're also making the same mistake.

Life is not sacred. If it was, we should not be washing our hands with soap or using disenfections or buying meat in such large quantities or even trying to cure bacterial deseases. Regardless of how insignificant those lifeforms are, as you said, "killing is killing".

Life is not sacred - especially not in the scientific sense. Life just is. You need a better argument as to why we should make exceptions in some cases.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

its_me_

Pointless keeping coma patients alive.

They waste the hospital's resources, make it harder for someone financially, and it is never garunteed that they will wake up.

Just like Terry Shaivo...

its_me_

Ineffecient keeping coma patients alive.

They waste the hospital's resources, make it harder for someone financially, and it is never garunteed that they will wake up.

I have no problem with keeping coma patients alive so as long as those who want the patient alive pay for it and provide for them on their own time with their own money. Not the hospitals, and not the governments.

[QUOTE="its_me_"]

Just like Terry Shaivo...

The_Ish

Pointless keeping coma patients alive.

They waste the hospital's resources, make it harder for someone financially, and it is never garunteed that they will wake up.

Shaivo is even a worse scenerio because she was severely brain damaged to the point of not being able to recognize anything around her... To me I would not want to be in that state, nor remembered that way.. And certainly not having my mentally handicapped face/self shown all over the world....

IMO that fetuse has every right to live, and it gets that right from the Preamble to the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution states: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see a person's posterity beins to live at the moment of its conception, and at that instant, the promise of constitutional protection should begin.

To break it down, a posterity is one's descendants, and since a fetus is a descendant and a descendant is posterity, aborting the posterity would kill it which violates several constitutional rights guaranteed to it. That right there should surpass a woman's right to choose, since her choice would violate her posterity's rights as granted in the Preamble.

IMO that fetuse has every right to live, and it gets that right from the Preamble to the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution states: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

You see a person's posterity begins to live at the moment of its conception, and at that instant, the promise of constitutional protection should begin.

To break it down, a posterity is one's descendants, and since a fetus is a descendant and a descendant is posterity, aborting the posterity would kill it which violates several constitutional rights guaranteed to it. That right there should surpass a woman's right to choose, since her choice would violate her posterity's rights as granted in the Preamble.

Another viewpoint:

Until the fetus is sentient, it is just part of the woman's body, and thus she has the right to remove it. It reacting isn't anything a random body part could do.

Another viewpoint:

Until the fetus is sentient, it is just part of the woman's body, and thus she has the right to remove it. It reacting isn't anything a random body part could do.

Manly-manly-man

Yes, not that i disagree with you, but since part of it has someone else's DNA, it isn't neccassarily a part of her body..

I personally am pro-choice just because of the fact that you are taking away rights, but i am morally against it and think that late term abortions should be abolished.miketheroman142

agreed.

We must understand that both rights have to be taken into account. I believe abortion should be used in situations of rape, health of mother etc. Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control we have many ways to do that believe it or not.

As Ronald Reagan said "Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born."

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

Another viewpoint:

Until the fetus is sentient, it is just part of the woman's body, and thus she has the right to remove it. It reacting isn't anything a random body part could do.

miketheroman142

Yes, not that i disagree with you, but since part of it has someone else's DNA, it isn't neccassarily a part of her body..

You're right. Medically speaking, a human fetus is technically a parasite in an immunologically privileged area of a woman's body. The fact that it contains someone else's DNA or even any DNA at all doesn't make it human. If that were the case, then you'd have to fault numerous bioengineering companies that have used human DNA to splice the human genome and create needed gene products for millions of Americans to simply survive.

Obviously, the mother's rights should always come before the rights of an unborn fetus. Until you've actually seen the delivery of a child or actually experienced being pregnant yourself, no one here really has the experience or the opportunities to really form any sort of educated opinion.

The fathers, he is the only one who is ImpartialWhicker89

:lol:

I'm pro-choice but I believe it's morally wrong in certain situations.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]Right. The fetus, which isn't concious, has the right to possibly ruin the woman's life, along with probably ruining its own life by being born to a crappy parent or put into foster services.DJ_Lae

Life is full of delightful consequences, I agree.

Indeed it is, however you don't get to decide jack about anything when it comes to consquence prevention.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"]

[QUOTE="Dracargen"]The Right to Life always surpasses the Right to Choose, and this case is not an exception.Dracargen

That's completely untrue. That is like saying it is wrong for a person to squash a bug or kill a rat. It absolutely isn't. As far as I'm concerned, abortions are 100% fine as long as the fetus isn't concsious. After that it's a bit debatable, but until the fetus can think, I don't get how someone can care other then religious reasons.

O rly?

It absolutely is wrong to kill another human being, and you do not have the choice to kill someone if you find them inconvenient. There is NO reason to not consider a fetus a human, except for the excuse "it doesn't look like it!" in which case, neither do harley babies or children with large tumors, but I guess we should kill them as well. . .

The woman's. I fail to see how anyone can care about the life of a clump of cells with no brain or nervous system.

You;re saying that we can only save one person? Either the foetus or the mother right? I'll say save the mother since she can always go into labour again.

If we kill the mother and save the foetus, it'll be an orphan (not really since the dad is still there) but still, the baby won't get a childhood filled with the mother.

Grown woman > half-developed fetus.smarb001

QFT

On a side note; I love reading the posts from the Right in this thread. :lol:

Wouldn't it be ironic if all of you people that support abortion had parents that considered having you aborted. I'll leave it at that.SuperVegeta518

How is that relevant? Anyone born after Roe v. Wade could have been aborted legally, yet wasn't.

The woman's rights are more important and the fetus isn't a person yada yada you get the point.

Here's the heart of the matter. Human's are differentiated from animals by two things, sentience and sapience. If you don't have those things you are not a human, if you had those things but then lost them then you (as a human) are dead. Seperate being alive from being human and the situation is clear, a fetus is not a human and therefore doesn't have the rights of a human. Hell we could even extend that to include newborns and toddlers because I'm pretty sure that they don't acquire the two S' until about one or two years of age (not to sure about this one).

Now hang on a second did I just suggest that infanticide (killing newborns and toddlers) is okay? Yes I did. But surely I must be wrong because everybody would say that infanticide is abhorrent and on that point I would agree. Unfortunately though we must either accept that infanticide is as justified as killing pigs and cattle or that we have chosen the wrong way to define what is and is not a human. What else could make a person a person? A soul perhaps, nah wishful thinking and unfalsifiable reasoning. Seems that we have a conundrum.

My answer sadly is to conclude that newborns are not actually people. They're alive that's for sure but other than that they are nothing special. There's two ways that I know that attempt to resolve this situation.

1. The argument from potentiality. A fetus/newborn has the potential to be a human and given the proper chance will, therefore we should give it every opportunity. This argument has a strong premise but it's conclusion is arbitrary and weak. Just because something can happen doesn't mean that it should happen. Why are we obliged to give fetus' a fighting chance? Quite simply we are not. The best I can make of this argument is to say that a fetus ought to be considered a seperate being from if it could survive outside the womb by itself. If it can break the parasite relationship to the mother then it can be considered to have rights of it's own (whether or not those rights include the right to life is unclear as of yet).

2. The argument from cuteness. As humans we instinctually feel affection for things with baby-like features. Check out this thread, yeah those are the sort of instinctual affections I'm talking about. They're an innate reaction placed in our brains by evolution and they help the propegation of our species. The argument goes that we shouldn't kill babies just because they're so damned cute but this of course indulges in the naturalistic fallacy and is even more arbitrary and pointless than
the first. It explains very well our gut reaction to the proposition of infanticide that I suggested earlier but doesn't really give a good enough reason to not do it.

Conclusion time:

A fetus is definitely not a person when it is in the parasite phase of the pregnancy. I think that the fetus can survive independantly of the mother sometime in the late second or early third trimester so before this point mothers ought to feel free to scramble the fetus' brains and then vacuum them out. 1st trimester abortions are definitely ok.

After a fetus breaks the parasite phase there is a period where it is a seperate being yet it doesn't have the two S'. This period is ambiguous and it could well be that it is in fact justifiable to not give human rights to the organism in this period (although doing so would absolutely violate our instincts).

My personal conclusion? If they are under 16-20 weeks then their rights depend entirely on how much the mother wants them. After that it's the point of no return.

Oh God I'm a monster.

The Woman. A fully developed mind which has control over her body.

And for those who say abortion is done by convenience, don't use that argument anymore. People abort so that they can either reserve their kids for a better quality of life, ot because they would be bad parents, or because the pregnancy would imply medical problems, that could diminish a persons quality of life.

Of course it's for convenience. That is the basic idea of abortion. Don't wars exist for convenience? Yet, many people lose their lives in them. We all should try to achieve a good quality of life. We should first think for ourselves, then, when we are able to provide good care, education, parenting, then we should consider having kids. Until then, wewon't be doing any good having children.

The Woman. A fully developed mind which has control over her body.

And for those who say abortion is done by convenience, don't use that argument anymore. People abort so that they can either reserve their kids for a better quality of life, ot because they would be bad parents, or because the pregnancy would imply medical problems, that could diminish a persons quality of life.

Of course it's for convenience. That is the basic idea of abortion. Don't wars exist for convenience? Yet, many people lose their lives in them. We all should try to achieve a good quality of life. We should first think for ourselves, then, when we are able to provide good care, education, parenting, then we should consider having kids. Until then, we won't be doing any good having children.

If they took care of their body, the problem wouldn't exist usually.SolidSnake35

women do get sex forced upon them though, which cant not only make the pregant but also give them stds which can effect the child. I'd say it's better to not have the child if it will grow up in a negaitive environment and not really even enjoy life. Would you rather be born even if you knew you'd be abused by your drunk father and just watch as your helpless mom does nothing???

Fetus.

The woman had the right to keep her legs crossed.

DJ_Lae

do you know what rape means?

Wouldn't it be ironic if all of you people that support abortion had parents that considered having you aborted. I'll leave it at that.SuperVegeta518

Oh well damn? Its called bad luck.. But then again I wasn't aware of my existence and I certainly was not the person I am today.. This exact same argument could be said about being born in a 3rd world country with thousands dieing by starvation each day.. Yet I never hear these so called lifers ever talk about this what so ever.. If human life was so sacred why has the war been supported by the pro life movement for the most part? Apparently people in another country arn't as important.. what about Rwanda in the 1990's, hundreds of thousands of people were hacked to death by crude instruments like machetes.. Yet I don't recall a single pro lifer crying out foul that these people need to be helped..

On top of all this alot of you guys make it sound like the fetus is a person.. When really its just a building block for the person we have no evidence what so ever that its sentient. Now we can say the exact same thing for babies, except they are able to survive the womb and are fully developing on their own.. genetic play some role, but alot has to do with my life experiences and perceptions more then really any other thing out there. There has to be a line drawn so the woman's liberties are upheld.. I my self am alittle edgy on the matter, but I realize that a womans rights in this nation are far more important to give equality to both sexs.. Something women still don't have in most of the world including the US, as well as most likely not having such freedoms/rights on the birth of society. This is not to say that its a clear cut account because we havn't learned everything in the matter.. Hence why its still debated in the medical/science as well as the philosophy communities. In the end I think both extremes of the arguments are stupid, there needs to be a rational and logical compromise.

I got it! We can all freeze the fertilize eggs for women who want it.. Lets see how that popular that is hehe... Lets go a step further lets have every pro life person have the fertilized egg surgically put into her.. Another interesting thing is if it is a human life, why isn't their funnerals for miscariages? Did people realize that the vast majority of fertilized eggs don't even reach the the disgnated area and are flushed out of the womans system?