Is "killing" a fetus and murdering someone the same?

Of course it can't survive outside of the mother's womb. It goes through stages to get to that point!(IE: The lungs aren't strong enough), any and all theories of supporting abortion are inherently discriminatory against the fetuses's. There's literally no difference from abortion, and the theories that stereotyped against challenged or impoverished children.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that abortion has any legitimacy, if there was legitimacy, even conservatives would side with it. But they don't. The only legitimacy surrounding abortion(and I said this in another post or another abortion forum): The only legitimacy is self-justification

The process of abortion doesn't support any third parties. It kills the developing the fetus, you've outright claimed the right to deny equal rights to men(all the meanwhile claiming irony on my part for pointing that out?). About the only third party that I can see benefiting(other than yourself) is the abortion doctor, who gets paid to the tune of thousands of dollars per operation.

But we can't call that an economic service or good(or at least, it's not one with long term benefits). The so-called long-term benefits(IE: An unfit parent not having children) could be had, as we concurred above by teaching women how to actually take care of themselves as women. Simply put: Stay out of a relationship until you're ready, and until you're sure that the man you're getting involved with is a person that concurs with you, and you with him.

It's not at all arrogant to expect a woman to carry my child to term, that's what I expect from her in an adult relationship. We're both adults, and I'm supporting myself and advancing myself through my career, what do you think that's for? I hope you don't think it's merely to accumulate a few dollar bills.

My job, my career, my degree are all to support the future family that I'll create as its stalwart and as its head. I want to have a family of myself, my wife and her children. All of the other natural goods and luxuries that money provides is merely to stabilize and support that family.

You proclaim it's an abusive relationship if the man leaves the woman who chooses not to support his dream of a family. This is wrong on two accounts. A: If he leaves her, there's no longer a relationship. How is it abusive? In fact, it's the best mutual ending! And B: A man is entering a relationship for his own reasons(just as you are, your own). If you can't(or won't) fulfill your side of the bargain, why should he stick around?

If it's that "abusive"(ROFL) to you, then why not wait until you're ready for an adult relationship? If a mutually consenting relationship is implausible to women because they'll have to lift half of the weight in said relationship then they're not really ready for it.

You shouldn't extort men to stay in the relationship because you're not ready. Nor should you rob them of their dreams and aspirations just because they're not your own. You have an obligation to be aware of your surroundings, and if you choose to be in an Adult relationship, you have an obligation to fulfill it.

If you don't want to fulfill it, if you have the arrogance to proclaim you can terminate the contract(AKA:Abortion), then you have the obligation to allow the male to respectfully disengage from the now broken contract.

Now, onto your theory that women do most of the child rearing and thereby and it justifies the right to abortion(though this in of itself is a part of the self-justification category and isn't a third party justification. So even this doesn't give abortion a moral fiber to stand on.)

The percentage of mothers of all classes have increased in the work force

Here's something more recent

The fact that women are struggling, even as work opportunities increase is the ultimate proof that feminism fails. They promoted the Big Lie(as once theorized by Joseph Goebbels) that if women worked on their own, became careerwomen that men could be obsolete! Well, the way the market works even if we had an equal salary pay system, it'd still judge based on the quality and production of the female worker.

And if the females don't produce the same as males, then they're simply not going to be able to compete on the open market. Feminism couldn't even support itself from an economic standpoint.

Even as maternity leave is granted more liberally and pay to go along with it, no company will keep an unemployed worker for an undetermined amount of time.

There's a reason every study that's come out that has said that married couples, or at least social unions of males/females are better equipped than their single father or mother counterparts.

It's because the Big Lie is not true.

Married couples are infinitely superior to all other families. It's even more economically feasible for the women. If a Feminist were truly calculating, she wouldn't allienate the male but instead court him even further.




I didn't ignore the question, I raised a question in response to debunk the theory. To be sure, there are some intellectuals who dislike this form of response and would rather me answer directly.

Firstly, I never excused their behavior. In fact, I believe I made that statement twice in the same post for good measure.(Apparently, that wasn't enough). And its true that you cannot choose where you are born and raised, but if we argue that a female has the power to ordain herself the judge, jury and executioner of life then I argue that we have the power to artificially create productive families.

There, problem solved right? Since the main reason for abortion is to cover the economic hides of women, by putting women in economically feasible positions, we no longer have a need for abortion.

We should have a zero-tolerance policy for "ghettos", clean up those streets and towns. Encourage local investment and employment. And a long-sought for policy: A National Marriage service.(Hell, we'll extend it to dating as well).

By pairing the best dates and marriage couples together, we'll form the best families.

Abortion is not a solution, it's a band-aid.




I don't know what you're referring to by saying that people would pay billions to see if they could have the DNA replica. I don't believe strands of DNA can exist in the physical time-space that we Humans live in. (In much the same way foam holds no form outside of water).

And yes, you're right. Having a child has been implanted in our brains, not necessarily by media but by natural design. It's natural for families to be created, in fact it is essential. Some here have claimed that due to our raw numbers, that there won't be a shortage for a time.

Which is true, but they neglect the future. The future in which the U.N predicted our population severely dropping. And at that, our youth will be mentally unprepared for the challenges of the new world.

Those of us who are becoming of age must prepare a stage for our children to stand on. Since the previous generation destroyed what their parents gave them and put us at this most perilous predicament.

And while there are some who think that way about adoption, there are many who think that having a child in their life is a blessing and an opportunity. And I don't believe humans reject those without blood ties.

There may be some social truth to that(otherwise, crimes wouldn't be committed) but at the same time, there's limits to that truth. If there weren't, we wouldn't have business alliances, mutual friendships or dialogue.

Your cousin has all the right to divorce the man because he's sterile. If she desires a child and a family, she has all the right to pursue one. And just as a father should expect one, so should a mother. If both burden the expectation, it becomes less of a "consequence" but a natural occurrence.



Your story with your father is actually quite prevalent in our era. And it's the result of Feminism. Feminism said that the father didn't have to be committed. By desanctifying the very notion of fatherhood, men simply aren't interested in being fathers.

So when women are now trying to have the government support fatherhood or otherwise interrogate them into fatherhood. They should've considered that before hand: Too little, too late.

Now, on the flip side of that there are many men who want to be involved and who yes, get screwed. Of course, by the female's own biased, sexist and egotistic opinions(which have now been sanctified to become law.).

This site is not only a great source for this particular article, but many others on the importance of fatherhood.

How can a male possibly mess with "her" BC? Hiding her pills? But then, this goes back to what I argued: The only reason a male would have for that, is if he went into the relationship with every expectation of fatherhood. Unfortunately, it is women who depend on males for BC, as they expect us to wear condoms.

Why should a male meet a woman's expectations, but a woman has the "choice" to never meet a man's? Proper? Respectful? That ideology was thrown away when women lost respect for themselves as well as proper behavior.

I'll argue that we men have made more than enough sacrifices. Those sacrifices have been trampled on, spat on and as a result, why should we continue onward?

We have no reason to. We men have utterly no reason whatsoever to be faithful, you said it yourself. Your promises, obligations, mean absolutely nothing. Your word can't be taken with any faith or credibility in a relationship.

Ironically, with the plummeting marriage rates and the increasing divorce rates this is already happening. There are a growing group of men who've decided this charade has lasted for long enough and that if we can no longer have a mutual ground in relationships, we're better off not having a relationship at all.

Hell, I'd argue the gay movement is a counter to the lesbian movement. The only ones who are losing out, are those of us idiotic losers who still think there's some kind of mutual, beneficial relationship called 'love' that exists between a male and a female.

Oh and one more thing: You're not "sharing" your body in a relationship. Your body isn't a separate item that you can give a person and then take it back. A relationship is a merger. When a couple lives in the same house, there's men and women items. From lipstick to shaving palm.

Or if you're going to argue that you "share" your body, please don't act as though the male isn't sharing his body as well.



5) I don't see how two adults consenting on a no strings attached relationship can be seen as disrespecting each other or stepping on each other dignity. If they are both aware of what the other wants and are using protection, I say go for it. They're living their lives.
If they want to have a one night stand, they should do it.
The keyword here is protection. If you're not using it you're inviting not only a 'surprise' pregnancy but also STDs. And for being that stupid they get no sympathy for me, only a 'bed made lie'.
Who am I to judge who someone is having safe sex with? If it maker her happy, I'll shut up till she acts dumb.
I can see that your views are somewhat conservative, given your background. (You're not alone in there) I noticed it on your reply in the family part, but I have to tell you, everything, every concept is dynamic... It'll never stay the same.[/quote]

Simple, they see each other as sex toys and little more than that. A sexual release for what? A few minutes to an hour(depending on how long) and that's that? As men, how little do we think of ourselves by saying anyone's acceptable?

That means we ourselves are not worthy of the best the females have to offer.

The same applies for females, if any male can have them then what self-worth does a woman have? But if all a woman has to offer is her body, then how meaningful is she as a relational partner? Another most rather displeasing thing about today's females is that they have the utmost arrogance to think that sex is all a man thinks about, or wants!

Let me say something to the females of world: We may not be "as complicated" as women, but we do have feelings as well. There is something we're expecting. For some of us, more so than others. In my case, it's my most important expectation to have a woman that can understand my emotional needs.

In fact, without that emotional understanding I don't think there can be sexual pleasure.

First of all I'm sorry for taking so long.
My cousin came to spend a few days with us and I couldn't log in to such sites...
They know my anime addiction but not the 18+ one. Hehehe
This discussion is becoming rather pointless as pro-life and pro-choice will always have different stands when it comes to fetuses. So this will most likely be my last reply.

1) Self-justification is the ONLY legitimacy they need. I won't be going to anyone's house to abort a fetus a woman is carrying without her consent. It's between the woman and the doctor she choses. No one else has the right (if any) to put their nose in the matter.
So you're saying that a woman has to go through emotional and physical pain just so the father can have his little baby? If he wants want so much why doesn't he adopt or seek someone who wants a child? Why should the woman cave in just to make him happy?

Actually it is pretty arrogant to expect HER to have your child if she doesn't feel the same. I hope you know that not every relationship or family has children in the picture.
You're basically saying that people don't have the right to have protected no strings attached relationship because we're all in this world to have children. Not to live, not to experience, not to find ourselves or find answers to our existence. Just push a couple of babies out of our vaginas and suddenly we're fulfilled for life. Sorry, but not every woman thinks like this.

A couple in a serious relationship will talk about things like having children when it starts to go down the marriage path. You don't start having children without any planning and security. That's plain irresponsible and stupid. You may think all turns out fine when the baby gets there but that's only if you're lucky. How many times have I heard the 'I don't have any money to feed my child!' story. This is why you plan ahead.
If the couple is not on the same page, he can't say 'I have the right to chose to have this child'. She'll laugh at him do what she wants because she has the right to not be a mother if she doesn't want to. He either deals with it or walks out. No threats involved.

It is an abusive relationship. But I guess I should call it an abusive sentence since he leaves so it ends... Please don't get me wrong, the man has the right to leave. It's the threat sentence that I don't agree with. Why does he have to threat her?
What about when he stays? She doesn't want that kid and he's there cuddling and having all those moments while she's staring at him with a dull face. She stays emotionally distant and refuses to do anything for the child. You think she won't resent it? He forced her to do it and he thinks he has a right to be resented?
There are plenty of man who manipulate women with this crap and the woman scared actually fall for it. What kind of man says this, knowing that she's not ready/she doesn't want to?
I'm not talking about a lifetime here, I'm talking about postponing it.
Yes, to me is one of the many forms of being abusive. I wouldn't admit such behaviour from my boyfriend.
However by your logic, if the man doesn't want a child he has the right to force her to abort because she'll be robbing her hopes and dreams. She doesn't fulfill it, she leaves. And that's how children from different fathers are born. ROFL
It's funny how you mention adult relationship like having children turns anyone into a grown up. That's just really funny. Being in an adult relationship does not give anyone the right to force their opinions and life wishes on someone else. It's a path build together.
No one will be robbing anyone's dream or hopes if they talked up front.

Just because a mother is working doesn't mean she's not doing most of the childrearing. Unless she has to travel nonstop, she'll be doing most of the work. My mother worked and she did most of the work raising me. I know a whole bunch of mothers who work and do most of the work.
The number of stay at home fathers is improving but it's nowhere near the number of SAHM.

What are you talking about? I never hear of such idea of feminist. The feminism I studied and support (not in the USA) is the equal rights between men and women, not the extinction of the other sex. (Which I never heard of it)
Women don't hate men and neither are trying to eliminate them. We're only trying to get the rights we deserve and were deprived fot so long!
I admit, I'm not a big fan of the payed maternity leave. A woman choose to have a child so she doesn't have to be payed for it. She can have her job back in 2 months (I don't know how much time it is, it never occured me to search), but those 2 months should be without pay. Why does she have to be payed if she's not doing anything. Unless she's doing her job from home she doens't need to be payed.
Anyway, I have no ideia who told you that Big Lie, but it seems to be a Big Lie someone told YOU.
Feminist never agreed to the idea of men being useless in society. It was created to empower women, so they could get the same opportunity as men. We have a right to be independent and answer for ourselves instead of having a man bossing us around and telling us we're too stupid or foolish to do anything by ourselves.
You're still believing the Big Lie because you want to. There are many articles on feminism on the internet and yet you didn't have the chance to truly inform yourself about feminism. It's like you read a theory on how women (feminists) are out there to ruin society and make women act crazy.
We have a right to freedom, but I don't have to answer for the stupid choices someone makes.

2) Yes, I believe Hitler started with the same line of thinking. You know chose the best and breed them, like it's the best for them.
However there is only so much a man can do and you cannot force people to act the way you want or dream of. I understand, you want to make society better and you condemn single families. But there is a reason why divorce is legal and marriege is being posponed. You can't force two people to be together for ever if they are not happy.
(I don't know if divorce has become fashion in the US but in here is still pretty serious).

Also, by your logic, single parents can get together too and create their artificial family. So there really is no need to match up anyone, since you can still have children with whoever and create your family.

Abortion wasn't legalized because women don't have money to raise a child. It was because we have the right to not have a child for whichever reason (economic, physical, emotional, whatever).
Even if you put women in 'economically feasible positions' that doesn't mean they want to become mothers anytime they get pregnant.
Or are you saying women should just be like nuns as long as they're alive? Or, as I said above, women in adult relationships must have babies? Not every couple wants a child in their life. And they have no moral obligation to birth children just because some women somewhere wants a baby.

Abortion seems like a pretty damn good solution to me. It eliminates unnecessary drama, controls world population, doesn't allow unfit parents to damage an innocent child (if they have a brain to do it, but most don't). Abortion is the most merciful act one can do to a growing fetus. Putting it in this world and throwing it to Lady Luck it's not humane.

3) So you're saying that people don't do IVF treatments to see what their DNA can create? Fertility clinics are not packed with couples who have the NEED to have some form of their own flesh and blood (DNA) wondering about so the woman can feel superior and the man can feel like a man because his sperm works?
What are you talking about natural designs? If there is abortion it's pretty obvious this idea of natural design is rubbish. As rational creatures (at least some are) we know better than start having children like crazy because there is something in our mind programmed to do it. We, humans, are better than that. If we weren't we'd be f'cking everyone and end up with children with multiple father.
I've met many people who could go on living without having children, but they're pushed by the media and society to do it. Because all women want babies (lies!), babies are cute (it's not a good reason to have a child), babies will make you a better person and unselfish (lies!), you'll always regret not having children (lies!) and I could go on...
It is not a natural feeling for everyone. It's highly pushed by the media and society on people to have children. In result to that we have way too much people than we should and it will CONTINUE along with the natural disasters that will soon kill us all. We're acting like animals.
She has the right to do whatever she want but you're basically agreeing with me on the view that people don't like to adopt and reject those without blood ties.
If I truly loved a man, I wouldn't get him out of my life just because he cannot have children. But hey, that's just me.

4) I do not know how to answer this one. I really don't. Since most of what you said, I didn't say it. But I'll try my best to address the points I did.
Actually my father should've known better since he's not from 'our' era. He was raised in the time of the values you defend so much but he managed to do this. Well, every theory has flaws I guess.

I've stated my views on the point of CS and visitations. They will not change.

If women depended ONLY on men for any kind of BC there would be way more abortions and people in the world.
Expectations of fatherhood? Don't make me laugh. Any man who wants to be a father so much can leave instead of messing with her BC. That's just crazy right of the bat. The minute a man messes with her BC to get her pregnant is never about the child. It's about the need to control and have HER.

Well, that is you view on love. It's not the first time I heard of it, so I won't say anything about it. You have the right to think of love however you want. You have the right to think.

5) With you views on love aren't you seeing you future wife as a mere incubator for you future children? As long as she does what you expect you stay with her. So why are you judging 2 people who want only sexual satisfaction with each other? You're making a contract with her and they also made a contract, so what's the problem?
Sure, men and women have feeling, I never said I did. But do you believe sex is mainly to have babies? To each their own I guess... I'm out!

I believe that lovemaking has a purpose, that purpose in the end is to build a family but it's also to build a bond between two people who actually engage in the act. To build that bond, I actually need something called trust. Which from Feminist-oriented thought, I'll never actually get. For a Feminist is in it primarily for herself, my thoughts are merely second in consideration(and as you've proven) the child, if a couple had one is lucky to be third.


I mean, you said "little baby" as if it's the most demeaning thing, more than a decade ago, we were both infants!

Feminism in the U.S started by and IMO moving more towards the original thoughts of this woman, Margaret Sanger who may be one of the deadliest philosophers to have ever risen in the U.S.








Today, the female world is filled with a bunch of Margaret Sangers. You yourself have proven just how miserably difficult it would be for a guy to find a loving and meaningful relationship partner.

You said self-justification is the only justification necessary. To someone self-absorbed, that may very well be correct. But to a moral person, that's utterly unthinkable. The child deserves a right to say in its own existence. Unfortunately, it can't so narcissistic "women" can butcher and kill as many as they'd like.

It personally disgusts me, it fills me with disgust. You'd think women would recognize their own downfall before a man does but it seems they're illusioned with themselves.

So the best we can hope for is two things: In this dark world, perhaps men can find a gold nugget here or there. Or, why not allow this deception to continue?

All lies crumble, and the worlds that were created by them crumble all the more easily. When this world collapses, perhaps females will reform to a former beauty they once had.

George Carlin talked about this in one of his bits called "Pro-life is bullshit", basically about abortions and the sanctity of life. When it does come to an abortion, IT'S FINE, if a fetus was a real person, then why do parents say "we have 2 children and 1 on the way" instead of saying they have 3 children? If a fetus counts as a human being, why aren't they counted in the census? If a fetus dies then how come no one has a funeral for it?

Can you put a fetus inside a coffin? Of course not, it's a bio plasma existence. Here's the fatal thing(pun intended) to the Abortion advocate:

We all originated from that plasmatic existence. Until you can invalidate that starting point, you cannot claim superiority or inferiority

In other words, I'll accept abortion when we Humans find an alternative to being born from the womb :D.

Since there's no such alternative, since this is the only productive process that we Humans have access too. I guess that means that all impregnated women are carrying a life :D.

Now, from a liberal standpoint even though the cases of Rape, Incest and threat to the mother(especially the last two) are slim to none, I've advocated for calling that "medical abortion".

But for what about the other, oh 75% of abortions that don't fit into that category?

We can fix that problem, it's an economic one. One that we need not throw away our morality, human conscious to solve. And to try to justify murder with trick play words.

I do not support the use of abortion in most cases, but I do support a woman's right to her body. A woman may choose to keep a child or not, are you saying sending another child into a foster home is a good idea? I understand the concept and it sounds "Yeah, that sounds better." But with the millions in the system, you're just adding to a bad cause.


Is this the liberal vs the Republicans thread?

That's the fatal thing? Really? Cause I see it as a rather irrelevant point to the entirety of the debate personally. Not really al that devastating. Then again, I've argued with you enough to know that you generally have a constant "missing the point" mentality.

And the solution to your own problem that you propose doesn't even make sense. If we made everyone be born as some sort of test tube baby or somehow artificially created humans like in Man of Steel or something, how would that solve the problem to you, really? Where does it follow that since we were all zygotes at one point, we're all equivalent to zygotes? That commits the fallacy of composition, stating that since we were something, we are equivalent in some way to that thing.

Millions of years ago we weren't even humans, so we can't claim superiority to anything at all now can we? Following your logic there is nothing superior about a human to a banana, because hey, we all came from the same place originally.

There are 2 main reasons why I'm pro-choice that your 'fatal blow' doesn't do anything whatsoever to touch.

1. Women, like all other people in the world, have body autonomy. If someone is using your body to survive against your will, you are morally justified to not let them do so, even if the process ends their life.
2. 95% of abortions take place within the first few weeks of abortion, at points where the fetus is completely undeveloped and cannot feel any pain. The percentage outside of that that takes place much further down the line, are all as you refer to them, "Medical abortions". So if they can't feel any pain, and aren't in any way aware that they're alive, and if we accept women have body autonomy, and we accept the scientific fact that prior to 23 weeks of gestation is required before a fetus is developed enough to feel pain, what morals are we abandoning in saying this is morally impermissible?



Again, so if we were able to make test tube babies, you're now totally cool with abortion? I call bullshit.



*shrug* Say they're carrying a life. I personally don't care. I don't find that relevant to whether it's permissible to allow abortion.



Well you can call it murder if you want, but legally speaking you're wrong. Sorry reality doesn't fit with what you want to call it.

You're the one who misses the point. The argument for abortion is a supposed right by the female(her right to choose), denying the fetus that very same right or even opportunity of growth. But if you can't make that argument(and you can't. Not without denying our own humanity), then the argument for abortion from a justification standpoint is non existent.

But just as you claim that I "miss the point", I believe abortion proponents are always intellectually dishonest.



Your first mistake was calling it a solution, your second mistake was implying that I purposed it.

What I said was, is that the justification of abortion is not only immoral, but implausible. And the only way you could even attempt to justify it is to somehow separate us from the origin of all things, the womb.

A Zygote is a Living cell

Guess what also happens to be living cells? The Human Body

So now whose committing a fallacy? Even right now, with the air that we breath our bodies are still operating in the same function.

We just have a skeleton structure to support our cellular bodies.



Except our ecosystem and the fruit ecosystem is entirely different. The same too goes for the Animal Kingdom to a great extent. But the Human Being and the fetus share the same exact ecosystem.

Unlike you, I won't pervert intellectual fact. That fetus(zygote, etc)IS a human being, it will be one. Only two complications stand in its way of being one: A: Health to the mother or B: Criminally, the pro-choicers will stand in its way.

The mother isn't inherently superior to the fetus, she is its equal. I repeat, its equal. She is "superior" only in age alone, and not from any biological, ethical standpoint. Indeed, abortion is ageism.

That's a far more legitimate argument then claiming a fetus isn't a human or that "fact" can justify abortion.







So when I refute these two points, you'll become intellectually honest with yourself?

As it relates to a fetus, a woman doesn't have autonomic rights

None, period. If we were to claim she has autonomic rights regarding the fetus, we could claim she has these same rights up until age 16(IE: Until an age where the child can theoretically work for its own pay and even then could it plausibly feed itself, cloth itself and take care of itself?)

We all know no pathetic part-time job is going to do that. So really, it's until age 21 or 22 that a full fledged adult with a college degree can truly take care of themselves. But even this! Some parents pay for their child's college tuition and even books.

Not only that, but I intellectually deny the concept that the
fetus is "surviving" against the woman's will!

The act of sex itself is consent to the fetus! If you don't want a child, don't have sex. It's as simple and as easy as that.

Furthermore, it's a merger. They're sharing the body. Just
as the fetus surely would want a natural birth, the mother is obligated not to butcher the thing provided its possible for a safe birth.

It takes two to tango, Biglundi. They're both in this, no matter how much you want to invalidate the other party.

Whether they feel "pain" or not is irrelevant to whether or not a life is being taken away before it can even develop. That being said, I wish to refute the notion that it's "just a bunch of cells".

It's surprising how quick our bodies develop





I'm "cool" with abortion on the premise that you can somehow refute our origins. Refute the shared responsibility between fetus and parent. A responsibility I argue that won't wane until 21 years of age. In the worst cases, admittedly longer.

I'm all for women's rights, I'm all for protections at work. I want to implement some of the harshest laws ever against rape.

I'm just not for abortion, I'm not for flimsy supremacist arguments that suggest one is superior to the other, or that someone's life can be discarded due to convenience.

As an example: Further funded researching into embryo development might allow us to better equip mothers to deliver safely to term without reprecussions. Who knows?

Sex is an act with consequences.
We need to take that action with the utmost responsibility




You want to know my solution, right? The real solution: The Superhuman theory. I literally support and endorse the continual birth of humanity. To continue our cycle and to enhance it however we can. Any scientific input should be used to make our lives better.

Not worse. Or to prematurely end them, that defeats the whole purpose. Where's the 'evolution' in that? Or the intellectualism?

I'm a Social Darwinist, a Humanist. I believe in our species, and I believe our true potential has yet to reveal itself. Whereas previously, the theory was used to uphold a sect of the human population, I extend it to the ENTIRE Human Race.

Instead of an 'arms' race, we should now embark on an 'evolution' race.

Without coming out for or against abortion. I would like to interject that when something (person, pet, etc.) is killed the right/wrong of it is viewed by whether or not it was unavoidable and who (still living) was impacted and how.

So is it a kindness to all involved to allow a drug addicted individual to get an abortion rather than, giving birth to, raising and possibly abusing a child and ruining their life? Or is it better to allow the mother to give birth and try to remove the child from the situation and give them a good life?

there's so much debate on this but i think it is similar to murdering someone because your stopping another life from being born. your taking a new born life away. so i answered the question. now as far as the reason for aborting a child that is totally different.

This is honestly a tougher debate in my mind, then on the validity of abortion itself. As I said before, I'm a Darwinist off Humanistic principles. So on one end, Natural Selection tells me that these parents mostly will be no good. They would live poor areas and only further contribute to crime.

Yet at the same time, isn't that punishing the fetus for the mother's poor situation? Wouldn't we be better served to attack the problem more directly?

Perhaps by legalizing drugs(The most benevolent and harmless ones actually) and creating some kind of network for former gang members and current ones who want to break free from the lifestyle and get them on the right path.

Very simply put, just as preventative care lowers the cost of Health Care. I argue that preventative measures to allow "at-risk" families to prosper would be far more economically viable.

Despite the costs of a human life, an abortion is 1,000 bucks down the drain. A human life, can possibly with proper education not only make back what was spent on him/her but can increase the value.

I haven't posted in some time but I have been in this discussion for a while.

I've already argued 2 tenants for the pro-choice side of this argument. I can understand what Lustful is saying about that $1000 bucks being better spent, but in Canada, abortions are free and a right of all women. It is not up for debate in our government, to deny a woman of this right is a criminal offense.

But what I really want to discuss is the third tenant of my argument, overpopulation. As discussed in the brilliant movie surviving progress, our world only contains limited resources. We have lived for generations on the interest of these resources, but we are past that and eating into the savings of this planet. Our planet is only able to sustain a population of humans that is less than 1/3 of it's current population. If you are looking at Canada as an example, for it's entire land mass, it's current population of roughly 35 million is at it's limit for the resources that it uses. Abortion for Canada is a necessary population control device.

This isn't something that can be argued against because it's a mathematical issue. It's a simple thing that can not be denied called exponential expansion.

My favourite scientist, David Suzuki can explain this better than anyone else can.




Our planet is a test tube, and we are past our limit.

Put it into words better than I ever could.

I believe that once the brain is formed, it now has the ability to think, which means that it us sentient, which would make abortion voluntary manslaughter at that point.

Hasty generalizations ftw right?

In any case, I can easily defend the right for the woman to deny the fetus this 'right' because the fetus doesn't have that 'right'. Rights are extended to things that can take advantage of that right, they don't have this right, so they can't be denied the right.

Of course that's never been the argument when it comes to abortion, you just like to rephrase an argument to your own narrow myopic free from nuance worldview as you understand it and then say it's the only issue to be discussed.

It's that simple.

Also, you and your vague terminology made to express silly rhetoric so you can feel like its a 'god vs evil' battle.

Dafuq does "denying our humanity" mean in this context?



Oh? See I was under the impression you had a problem with abortion. Since you said...



I presumed that you then being ok with abortion was an implicit approval of what you were suggesting as a solution. Then again, that would just logically follow, and you're not one for conceding logical consistency.

And of course what you proposed was an alternative to being born from the womb..so I presented an alternative, like you suggested.

Where's the mistake again?



Did you just commit the fallacy of composition? Yup. Yup ya did.

If you don't know what that is, it's similar to saying this: "A jet can fly. A jet engine is an integral part of the jet, therefore the jet can fly." Conflating the properties of the parts with the properties of the whole, essentially.

Assigning the properties of a zygote to a living cell and then saying that because humans are made up of living cells we are somehow equivalent to zygotes is the fallacy of composition. So yeah...you're committing the fallacy. Thanks for playing.



That's the only difference? You're not thinking too hard on this one are you? Then again I shouldn't be surprised I suppose.

So, the difference between humans and zygotes is humans have skeletons...

And a brain, and a stomach, nerve endings, internal organs galore, the ability to process that we're alive in our minds, the ability to feel pain, and oh, so much more.

SO, here's the even more fun part. IF IT IS TRUE that the human zygote is equivalent to the living cells of the human body, and therefore its life must be protected, then, following that logic, it is murder to wash your hands. :D Because hey! What's the real difference between living cells on our bodies and the zygote? And the zygote being killed is murder! Therefore killing our skin cells is also murder.

That's logic.



S is the ecosystem you or I live in and the ecosystem of the zygote. Pretty sure neither you or I live inside another person and leech off of them to grow and develop.



No we don't. Again, neither you or I live inside another person.



There you go with claiming absolute authority over what is true and what is not. "It's settled, this is pure hard fact that is irrefutable! I'm right! You're wrong! If you disagree then you're a liar!"

Seriously, can you BE more of a douche?

Then again I should support you doing this, prevents you from ever being taken seriously in the court of law, or by any legislator ever. So...you will never have any authority over the law, rendering al of your opinions irrelevant to everyone else's lives. So keep on truckin.

You kind of remind me of Lemongrab from Adventure Time.



Those two claims cannot be simultaneously correct.

I eventually will be asleep. That does not mean I currently am asleep. If I WILL be asleep...then I'm not asleep. Otherwise I would be, and I won't eventually be.



Well you can't call it criminally because...well...it's legal. But hey, at least you literally just admitted the fetus/zygote isn't a human being yet.



Abortion has never been about whether or not the mother is 'superior to the fetus'. It's about whether or not the mother is to have her bodily autonamy taken away because someone else is using it to live, and even if that someone else can be called a someone else.



Abortion is a legal issue, also an ethical one, which means it's a philosophical issue. While facts can be used in philosophy, ultimately when it comes to ethics, the most we need to do is agree as to what right and wrong are, and then figure out where abortion falls on that spectrum. That's it. Whether or not the fetus is a human, to me, is completely irrelevant to whether or not the woman can get an abortion.



If your idea of refutation is just to cross your arms, pout and say, "Nuh uh!" then I'll remain on the pro choice side, thank you.

Also, stop calling me intellectually dishonest when you have yet to show where I have been as such. You need evidence to label me a liar, not a bland, baseless accusation. Unlike al my insults towards you, which have al been justified generally in the same q2uote I'm responding to at the time. :D

Of course if you DEFINE 'intellectually dishonest' as being a 'pro-choice' advocate, then you and I have completely different ideas as to what 'intellectually dishonest' means.



Ok...nowhere in there did you refute my first point. You just said, "They don't have that right! Because if they did they'd have that right until age 16!"

That doesn't even make sense.

What you're telling me is that until someone is completely self sufficient relying on absolutely no one else, financially, then they don't have the right to their body? So I guess child molestation's alright. And that never even happens when you think about it. No matter what job you get, you're relying on someone else as to provide you income so you can live...so under your logic, nobody ever has the right to their own body. That's a frightening thought.

Say I dragged you to a hospital and hooked you up to someone with liver failure and said, "Stay there until we get a new liver for him." Are you saying you don't have the right to tell me and the liver failure guy to go fuck ourselves if you're not over 21 with a college degree? How does that make any sense to you?

[/quote]Not only that, but I intellectually deny the concept that the
fetus is "surviving" against the woman's will![/quote]

I'd say you very stupidly deny that, but alright.



Say you like operas for a moment. You read the paper and there's a show in town that yu want to go to. You also read that there has been a kidnapping once or twice in that opera house. You then say to yourself, "Well what are the odds it will happen to me?" and go anyway. Then you get kidnapped when you go to the show. Are you saying that in this scenario you consented to being kidnapped? Cause hey, if you didn't want to be kidnapped, then you should have stayed in your home the rest of your life and kept the door locked.

Because people engage in risky behavior doesn't mean they consent to the negative consequences that may result from that behavior. That's why you need to sign a consent form when you do something like sky dive. Nobody in court would ever win by saying, "Well yeah he died while jumping off our plane, but he consented to dying doing it the moment he hopped on!" That's retarded.



What? We're reading fetus' minds now? I was cesarean born, is that a natural birth? What about people who are taken out of their mothers wombs and put into incubators and kept hooked up to machines because their mothers' bodies have a problem with keeping them alive for the entirety of their development? IS that natural? Are these things the fetus actively wants not to happen? I have no idea how you would even know that.

In any case, when a woman says, "Hey, I don't want this child in my body"...at that point...how is the child not in that woman's body against her will? She wants something not to happen, it's happening anyway...that's textbook "going against one's will". Explain how it's not. And repeating, "she had sex so she consented" isn't going to work, as I outlined above.



Now I'm imagining a pregnant woman with an army helmet on and another one strapped to her bely as she wades into battle going, "I've got your back if you've got mine son!" Sorry, what you just said is meaningless rhetoric so I just went on to say something else also irrelevant.



Well you didn't. We're al a bunch of cells. That's...what all living things are. If you want to go even further we're all atoms created in the forges of dying stars. You could show me a 2 month old with a bunch of organs or whatever the size of someone's pinky it wouldn't stop the fact that all of those are just cells. Also, good job on using a pro-life website as some sort of scientific authority. Because bias research means something in legislation and ethical discourse.

Oh, and you can talk about "At the end of the first trimester they look like this" or whatever al you want, abortion takes place before most of what that page explains happens during development. Again, 91`% of the time.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2003/06/17/fast-facts-us-abortion-statistics/

And the fact of the mater is, the fetus has no consciousness before the third trimester.

http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance





So yeah, when we make babies in test tubes, you're cool with just aborting them whenever.

Not sure why you suddenly shift because of such a mundane detail. Personally I'd have MORE of a problem, potentially with abortions if we separated the need for mothers. Why does that just eliminate the issue in your mind? Especially since as you said in the beginning it's 'about the fact that nobody is superior to the fetus'.



You can call them supremacist laws, ageism, or whatever, but your perspective is not the shared perspective of most people involved in the debate. Nobody argues that fetus' are 'inferior' to their mothers. That's NEVER been a justification for abortion that I can even think of. Yet you seem to think this is the central and potentially only issue that must be contended with. It's really, really weird.



*shrug* I dunno, maybe. Wouldn't eliminate mothers getting abortions, nor should that be the only reason a mother gets one.



So...when people have unsafe sex, they can get pregnant, though even then that doesn't happen all the time, but, as SOON as one gets pregnant, then they must accept this as a 'consequence of sex'. And just live with it, no matter how they feel about it.

Hrm...I'm gonna go with no. Though I do find it hilarious when pro-life advocates characterize a child as a 'consequence'. Like it's the equivalent of being sent to jail for a crime. Makes my blackened liberal heart giggle.






That's...not...a...solution. That's you saying, "We need to keep humanity alive!" which abortion has never threatened, even in the wildest dreams of any pro lifer, and to continue to use science to make our lives better...which is completely and totally irrelevant to abortion. How does any of that 'solve' the problem of abortion when none of it has anything to do with it?



There you go bastardizing the word 'evolution' as if it came from pokemon. Then you throw 'intellectualism' out there like it meant anything to even ask. I'm convinced with every meaningless use of rhetoric that you have not one single clue what you're talking about.

Evolution is a biological process of multiple possible mechanisms that cause a species to change over time morphologically should environmental pressures push one to do so, or if genetic drift(or the other mechanisms) prompt them to do so.

That's all it is. To use it as some sort of policy making tool is nothing short of a naturalists' fallacy.



Those two do not mean in any way even close to the same thing. Define what YOU see social Darwinism as, because I don't think you have the slightest clue what it means.



So basically your idea of 'evolution' is just to make as many babies as possible regardless of how they turn out.

I'm SO glad nobody follows your twisted psyche's ideas when making policies, or humans would have died out a loooong time ago.

So a comatose human being is not 'conscious' to take advantage of its rights, therefore it loses all rights? When we're asleep, we lose consciousness. Does a person that's merely asleep lose its rights?

What about an animal? Although an animal is 'conscious', it is only acutely aware of it surroundings and does not "take advantage" per say of its rights. Do we roll back the animal laws? Animal cruelty is acceptable? Poaching is okay in your books?

A Zygote is an animal, to be more specific it is a being that is in between the boundaries of the animal ecological system and the human ecological system. While it holds the same status of a semi-conscious animal, it is a part of the human ecological system.

You cannot deny a zygote's "existence", it's biologically impossible to do so.
At the very least, you can't make the argument that you can take away a "being's" rights due to abstract reasons.

Your theory fails at the very onset.





You had the mistaken belief on what I qualified as "separate from the womb", which is as much of my fault as yours. So allow me to further explain.

I've outlined a Zygote as a "being" with the properties of an animal, while existing in the human ecological system. As such a being, it holds the same protective rights as a child.

What I'm asking you very specifically is this: To disprove the zygote's existence.
At the very least, this is the chain you'll have to break:

Zygote> Fetus>Child> Adult> Death

If you can disprove it's existence, or break off this chain. Then I'll acknowledge you can do whatever you want with it.


See, morality stands on the side of intellectual truth. Which of course, Abortion doesn't. Abortion only stands on self-justification, which in turn you as the proponent have to justify.

Claiming a zygote is a being, is as easy as stating it. There's no need for me to intellectually deduce its existence(though I did so as a favor to you)

Claiming you have the right to eliminate a "being" as an option, however requires you to jump through many intellectual hoops.

For someone whose "superior" to me, why can't you comprehend this?





Incorrect, this is the fallacy of composition:

"A jet can fly, a jet engine is an integral part of the jet, therefore the jet engine is the same as a jet."

If you're going to make an argument, please make it thorough(and correct).

Despite my correcting your theory, I must say that your theory is incorrect in its application in this case.

Or in other words, if I were making the argument you ascribed to me. It would be akin to me arguing that the heart or brain, which makes up of our red blood cells an oxygen is the same as a human.

But I never made that argument. Ever.

The argument that I made, is that it's neither the Jet as a whole, or the "jet" engine that makes up the jet.

But rather, the parts(particularly, the body parts) of a jet that make it up.

After all, without those, there's no such thing as a jet. Particularly, without putting it together in the frame of a jet, it's not a jet. It's just a collection of metal.

Without the jet, it's no longer a "jet" engine, but a mere engine. And I argue theoretically that just about any engine can fulfill that role.

This differs from the zygote, which has a specific purpose, which can only specifically impregnate a human female and can only create one thing(a human being).

Basically, the blueprint of a jet is what's most important. That's the beginning of a jet's life. Now, that plan can be revised and changed multiple times.

However, an abortion is akin to someone ordering jet parts, the jet's partially built and

"Oh, no, this doesn't look right, let's scrape it down."

Which, well is a waste. I mentioned in another post how it's 1,000 bucks down the drain. You can't even call it savings, especially since abortion targets "poor women".

It's a fat industry for abortion practitioners and about the only thing that can
be said is that it's "cheaper" in comparison to raising a child.

But if you spend that saved cash on lavish things, what kind of savings is that?

I pointed out in a few posts earlier than this, the positive cost value of a child that eventually grows into a college graduate. And that even a H.S. graduate can
at least make even on its debt.


It's a far more sufficient solution, to put prioritizing on family, education, etc. An 'abortion' is not "family planning"(which makes it ironic to be supported by "planned parenthood).

"Family planning" is selecting to whom it is that you'll date, and what you aspire for in a significant other, it is acknowledging at what age you'd like a child,
what kind of schools would you prefer? How can we make work hours more flexible?


The investment of family planning, can be a cost-sum. An Abortion is almost ALWAYS a sunk cost.

In my eyes, abortion doesn't even have the 'self-justification' argument, it's a cop out.







That's the Fallacy of Composition. You just argued that all cells are equal, and I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that they're not.


Most germs, though they are cells are not necessarily cells from the human structure. In fact, they have to blend and protect themselves from being obliterated by our red and white blood cells.

This is....basic science. Lundi, are you even trying at this point?


Ooh look, it has a DNA composition. It's TOTALLY different from skin cells..

I just wanted to start with that part of your argument first, since it's hilarious :)

As for your first 'argument', it doesn't deny mine. It strengthens it. The only difference between a zygote and a human being, is that a human being has finished it's biological development.

That's word for word of what you said(just shorter and more concise)

And even that development, doesn't finish after birth. But instead, we know the frontal lobe isn't fully developed until our mid-20's.

See here

Who knows what else isn't developed until our mid-20's, or what new things develop as adults. I'm no biologist, but I'll intellectually theorize that just as we say we learn something new every day, the human'a physiology changes during all four stages of life.

In fact, it's not a theory it's a fact. What's menopause, if not old aging of hair?

Would you deny these people their rights as well? Their "development" is not yet finished. Or will you grant them rights as long as they can speak them out? Or as long as you can physically see them.

Is a patient with dementia less of a human being to you?






No, we just live in our parents homes until we move out. And if you're a worker,
you work for a CEO. And if you're a CEO, you need to have others work for you.

I guess we live in a quasi-dependent society. **gasp**. That's an utter shock.






Let me drive the point so home for you, even you'll understand: I assume you're a male right(well, even if you were a female). When engaging in intercourse, the penis has to penetrate the vagina right?

By god, it's like a cycle! A life cycle? Yes :D And all I ask for from an abortion proponent, is to break this cycle. But that's biologically impossible.

You cannot break the cycle, or deny it. At best, you can try to speak circles around it.





Truth stands alone, without the necessity of the burden of proof. However, proof of truth allows us to overcome the Big Lie and to restore intellectual sanity to an insane world.

I find it hilarious, as an intellectual that you would stand with "lawmakers" who all to often ignore intellectual truths, pervert them and create their own.

This is all too true in the "court of law". A Jury of "our peers" is the furthest thing from an impartial jury with respect to the law. Do you think a truck driver knows what the legal boundaries are, as defined by court documents?

Do you think a judge, who decides for himself what truth is is truly interested in the truth?

What is "true" to us, is essentially what we believe to be true. But an intellectual has far higher standards than our "court system". We're interested in a truth that can stand on its own, our interpretation of that truth can only strengthen it, not weaken it.

Let us take our argument: I propose that a Zygote is a being. It is a human being simply at an earlier stage of development.

That truth stands on its own. I don't need to justify that truth. It's not an opinion, it's a factual in the world of human biology and nature.

Your 'truth' is a subjective opinion, that's very weak and fragile and needs your own personal interpretation. That's especially why you brought up "thank god, I won't influence the courts"

Thank god, I won't influence others who share your "viewpoint". But this in of itself, damns your opinion. For if it were the truth, I couldn't invalidate it and you wouldn't need to justify it.

If it were the truth, humanity would abide by it without protest. There wouldn't be a "pro-life" movement, if indeed "choice" as the definition of the pro-abortionist lays out were legitimate and correct.

But it's not, neither you or I have that choice. Not with a conscious being,
and certainly not with a developing being.


Do you understand? Why I look down on the "pro-choice" argument? It can never stand the test of time. Only a truth that can stand the test of time is accepted in the eyes of an intellectual. Your subjective opinion is like a fly versus an eagle.





Actually, there is a state of sleep that allows us to be awake at the same time

To accurately translate it, would look something like this: "I'm sleepy, so eventually I will sleep."

(The state of tiredness, being the true first step of sleeping).

The state of being a zygote, is akin to that first step to eventually "being human".




Legal under the "eyes" of the court of the law. Which lately I come to reject for the foolishness of it all. A jury does not have members who can legitimately discern guilt from innocence, and a judge who he himself is not truly impartial.

For someone to truly be impartial, their feelings or "opinions" cannot be substituted with the facts. And it's factual that a zygote is a part of our root tree.

As long as it's a part of that root tree, its existence cannot be denied or logically twisted to whatever notion one chooses.





Well, I think we confirmed that it can be called a "something else" without a shadow of a doubt now. Unless you wanna dance some more intellectual hoola hoops.

And as I said before: As it relates to another "being" or "life", etc another person has no right to terminating a life. If we make this argument, relating to bodily autonomy then I submit that the argument is legitimate until the child is an adult.

Which, of course, is illogical. The only time we can ever actually accept your logic, is when the mother truly is threatened by the fetus. And if we acknowledge that to be true, according to MSNBC they themselves want to see "lesser abortion."

The only times we can accept abortion is "rape/incest/health to the mother", An 80% reduction on Abortion. I can morally accept that, in exchange for allowing the practice to continue for eternity.


And if we can improve the "health to the mother" aspect, an even further elimination. Until eventually, this practice is rendered obsolete. Don't think it can occur? Dinosaurs lived and died, gas was once 1.00 a gallon. Times change.







But it's not irrelevant, for that is the most crucial part of the argument. Is a fetus/zygote not a being worth respect of its own life? If it is, then we cannot argue for autonomy in virtually almost everything circumstance.

If we argue that autonomy does exist, pertaining to this circumstance then it is in fact ageism. For we've confirmed that the Zygote is a part of the Human tree. It is merely the beginning stages of human development.

We cannot then call this abhorrent act "ethical", nor "moral". It's a self-justification. I called it that from the onset, and intellectual analysis confirms. It can only be justified from the perspective of the 'self'.

And only in very rare cases is that self-justification moral.(we don't want either one or potentially both lives to be taken away.)








As Intellectuals, we're responsible for combating the Big Lie. We must bring truth to the world where otherwise subjective viewpoints shade the truth. We're objective, impartial and our knowledge base is at a higher level than most others.

Abortion is the Big Lie, which can maybe in certain situations be justified. But from a "moral" perspective of "choice", doesn't exist. We do not choose who lives or dies. If so, then what was the point of war against the "authoritarian regimes"?

What was the point combating the Ku Klux Klan? These groups, and many of them
choose to racially or in some other form discriminate against other Human Beings.

The "Pro-choice" side actually sides with these groups in Human History. Actually, it's somewhat worse.

Those groups, at least physiologically acknowledged the person's existence. The Pro-choice side doesn't. And again, only for convenience.

You might ask "isn't it okay, as long as we're satisfied?" and I say: "Normally, yes. If it didn't implicate another person I wouldn't care." But it does, and so its intellectually false and dangerous.



The Gundam Seed series gets mixed reviews, but I generally loved the series. Forget the re-using of scenes for a moment and forget Lacus's hypocrisy, the plot itself is very intense.

Gundam Seed brought rise to the interesting antagonist named Rau Le Crueset. Because of certain conditions(due to his artificial birth) he aged faster than others.

As a result of this calamity(and the ongoing war), Rau decided to purge humanity altogether for he concluded that it could never achieve peace.(And to some extent, revenge for his flawed life which was granted by egotistical scientists)

If we continue on this path, we may eventually find ourselves with a Rau-type in power and influence. And we would have nothing but ourselves to blame for it.







In the examples you postulate, you're speaking of another person violating another
that doesn't relate to the mother(who gets this 'right' in my hypothetical example). Your 'right of autonomy' mostly refers to 'cost', 'burden', etc.

I'm merely expanding that to say it's not only a burden in the past, and the present but also in the future. That natural expansion, of course doesn't make
sense.

Neither too, does it make sense during pregnancy. How is it a burden, in the case of naturally consenting to have sex? You should have already anticipated that this person would be a part of your life, that this man for better or worse had better be a committed partner.

Abortion doesn't give control to autonomy. It's a half-assed "solution" which violates the rights of life to another, yet developing being.

It's a burden to those who haven't exercised responsibility. To those who
haven't planned their lives ahead of time. It's tempting to throw everything away, to claim that we can throw that away. We can even make it "legal" if we want to.

But we can't throw away consequences. The growing figure of single mothers and fathers, displaced children. They occur not because of "unwanted" children, but because the concept of "unwanted children" exist in the first place.

A society where children are wanted, nurtured and raised will ensure future healthy parents, who are then able to pass on their knowledge to the next generation.

We are not, as you may believe artificially bringing only "wanted" children into the world. We are bringing in children, who have absolutely lousy parents who believe parenting, much like everything else can be discarded away.

The very concept, allows for the elimination of decision making, of prioritizing and of truly enjoying parenthood.

A few decades ago, we were a world power. Now, we're a laughing stock. And I submit the intellectual truism that Liberal "intellectualism" is at the fault of it all.

To find every and any possible excuse to throw away any sense of value and responsibility.





But in everything we do We have a choice. In the case of the opera, I can think of many things. For one thing, is the Opera recorded? Buy a tape of the recording. Go to a different opera that's playing the same song. Or, if the Opera's still in town and the kidnappers have been apprehended, you can still go :D.

I can absolutely make that argument BTW, as long as I show that I took the proper safety precautions. It becomes, at worst, an accidental death. But one mostly of his doing, if he suggests to do something stupid or takes off the parachute at the wrong timing(or doesn't bother to bring one at all) or something like that.







The baby itself, naturally guides itself(with pushing from the mother of course)

How is this not team-work? It's also Natural Design. I summarize if we could, a fetus hypothetically would want to live. a child's curiosity alone is piqued and regardless of our egotistical judgments, that child does not have our ego, in fact it has its own mind and will power.

Now, to answer your question. You yourself acknowledged that it's not a conscious being. Therefore, it's not even remotely aware that it's violating its mother's "rights". As such, it's under no obligation to even remotely consider those rights. It can't consider them.

However, the mother is aware of the child. She's obligated to consider its rights, its future. If you want me to be so liberal, perhaps that can also be extended to abortion. If she's an absolutely miserable parent, no I wouldn't want to bestow any child upon such a person.

But in my opinion, she should have then waited to committing to her adult life altogether, until she was free from her phase of "teenage" behavior, as a 25+ year old woman. That's more responsible than irresponsibly having sex and baring a child you have no intention of caring for. Or, aborting it because you can't take care of it.

Grow up, wise up, be a healthy mother(and have a healthy father) to support the structure.








It's not irrelevant. Nor is it meaningless rhetoric. It's true during the birthing process, during childhood life and even there are times where as adults we mutually concur with and help our parents.

Life's a teamwork thing in my opinion :).




Knox's 9th: It's allowed for observers to let their interpretations and conclusions be heard. There's also the Ad Hominem rule. You cannot simply
dismiss a factual or a statement, because it opposes your statements.

As an example, just below you used fox as a source(and you declared yourself a Liberal in other postings). Does that mean you feel privileged to use Fox as a source, but if a 'conservative' or a 'Republican' were to use the same site as a source, you would call them bias'd?

I wouldn't call you bias'd for using MSNBC as a source(even though you are bias'd). Actually, more accurately: I wouldn't denounce your opinion based on your bias. Because my opinion, no, All Human opinions are biased








Unfortunately, those stats(and none of the others) pinpoints the exact week.

Most graphs tend to have it at <6 weeks. But that's not enough information. 5 weeks? How about 4 weeks?

According to typical sources, it takes some 14 days at least to know of a pregnancy. So, are we to suggest that on the 15th day that a bunch of women decided to have an abortion?

I won't deny that there are some who probably do. But getting into this argument about when they did or didn't have an abortion is meaningless.

Let's define it specifically.

I believe that if you had sex, and if you're in the right position financial wise, you have every obligation to that fetus. Abortion isn't a "solution" or a "control mechanism", it's a butchering of life that I'm slightly willing to accept on the basis that we'd otherwise go on a perpetual back and forth surrounding morality.


Rape? Sure, fair game. Incest? Though it's at less of a 0.8 percent(according to many sources of women). Fair enough. Health to the mother? Of course.


If we limit it to these cases, abortion is drastically reduced. These are the reasons you argue we should keep it's validity in the first place, so you should have no problem.




A very fair question. And I find it much more intellectually satisfying when
our dialogue is a bit softer like this. It's as much, if not mostly my fault for my viewpoint of seeing abortion as a flimsy argument at best, and anyone upholding that argument is equally presenting a flimsy opinion.

I'm cool with aborting them in a hypothetical in which you break the chain because, supposing you're able to break it(or suppose that we do find an alternative existence for a fetus without human ecology) then that means it's not of the human race.

Simply put, there's a sanctity to human life. We all argue the various limits of that sanctity, but nevertheless we believe human life to have value. Whereas animals are consumables. We have laws surrounding animals of course, but as far as harvesting food it's fair game.

Abortion, indeed is only justifiable under the guise that it's not a sanctified life. But a zygote being at merely "stage one" doesn't in my mind qualify.

We were ALL at stage one. To invalidate stage one, invalidates our entire existence.

I don't know about you, but I'm too egotistic intellectually to invalidate my
own existence. And I do intend to have children some day, so I hope to find a loving and caring woman who wouldn't invalidate them on such flimsy reasoning either.

To bring up that food example again, I'm not a vegetarian, I'm a meat eater. For as much as I claim the sanctity of life, if the pigs/chickens, etc are being slaughtered properly by sanctity of the law, then I've of no concern.


The sanctity of life, means just that. Respect to the life that's lived, not to disregard it and not to throw away life's responsibilities and challenges.





The argument itself is supremacist. You, a fully developed being claims that other beings cannot fully develop, if a fully developed being chooses so.

Just because you don't conceive that notion, doesn't necessarily mean that the actions and philosophies surrounding those actions, do not reflect that notion.

That would be like me saying I'm an atheist yet attending the Christian church.
I'd then justify it by saying I believe in the church's teachings, but not "god's"

But, "god's" teachings are the church's teachings. No matter how much I deny my "belief" in a god, by believing in church dogma, I'm a christian.

(For the record, I am NOT a Christian. If I said nothing after my example, you could've stereotyped me and thought I was making a "right-wing" pro-life argument.
I wasn't. I'm making a naturalist, intellectual and spiritual argument).

I'm a Spiritualist, I've no loyalty to any religion or church creed dogma.






But it would lessen the amount of abortions, and yes it SHOULD be the only reason a mother gets one.

The "unwanted child" syndrome has created more poverty in the home land, it has not prevented "unwanted births", it has actually brought birth to unwanted births.




I don't view a child as "consequence", nor does the pro-life groupie per say. But rather, much as talking with people from a foreign country, wouldn't you use their language to communicate?

But sex is an act, one that comes with it responsibilities that I feel cannot be simply discarded.




"Legally" speaking refers to the "courts", and to the "law" and from a purely philosophical perspective, I hold that their voice lacks credibility. The law speaks for itself, but those who arbitrate it, when I think about it are less credible than the law itself.




It's not irrelevant. Most females complain about economic difficulties when citing reasons for abortion. Giving females, aka mothers the opportunity to groom their children and their family in an environment that supports the concept of a healthy family will lead to lesser abortions, more safe sex, less teen pregnancy, etc.

All from the concept of responsibility. No 1,000 dollar baby killing tools necessary :).





It's not a fallacy, read what you yourself wrote.



You speak strictly of the biological perspective, however. So allow me to give you a definition of a new word you might be surprised with: Terminology.

The vocabulary of technical terms used in a particular field, subject, science, or art; nomenclature.

Technical Terms, being the key word. I can use Evolution in terms surrounding nature.

See for yourself


I'm utterly stunned that you're unaware that words don't have several different definitions and can of course be used in different fashions.

When our bodies grow, they change, that change can be referenced as evolution. To progress our science and technology to another level, is of course an evolution.








First, I'll give you official terminology as to what it means, then I'll tell you what it means(or more aptly, what it should mean).

The application of Darwinism to the study of human society, specifically a theory in sociology that individuals or groups achieve advantage over others as the result of genetic or biological superiority.


That was the official view of its proponents in the past. We are Intellectuals, as much interest as we have in preserving truth, we have a greater responsibility to the world. And that's to present progress.

Why should we strive for a few elites? A few excellent workers in the Bee Hive?
A greater goal, and a truly more admirable one is to raise up an entire colony of elite bees.

Whoever said there had to be "have" or "have nots". We could use the theory of Social Darwinism to raise elites in all various different cultures, traits, etc.

It's the Superman theory after all, if we were to butcher and reduce our numbers the theory itself is inevitably weakened.




And yet, we didn't die out. To the contrary, the precise moment my theory took place, in the mid-60's we had the greatest boon in the American/World economy.

The more adults that have a necessity for work, the more workers there are. The more children that's born, the more leaders and even elite workers that there are.
These are basic, common, simple facts.

The more we promote growth, the more we will grow. Perhaps, in a sense we should rationalize growth, but we shouldn't stunt it.

Our stunting growth, our disrespect of responsibilities, etc al. has put America(and the world) in this present position. And it'll take a major revision of New-left failed policies to put us back on the right track.

According to biology, the characteristics of a living creature are as follows:
Living things are made of cells.
Living things obtain and use energy.
Living things grow and develop.
Living things reproduce.
Living things respond to their environment.
Living things adapt to their environment.

A fetus is composed of a single cell who learned how to obtain energy, use it to grow develop and reproduce itself in order. It knows how to respond and adapt to their environment. Did I mentioned that doctors all agree that life begins at conception?

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." -Dr. Jerome Lejeune (The Father of modern Genetics)

Science has always stand against abortion. It is funny how all those who supports abortion has already been born

You do not need Religion to be Moral. But it takes Morals to be called a Human. Different cultures has different definition of what is acceptable and what is not. But there is only one rule for morality and that is the golden rule: "Do not do to others what you do not want others to do unto you"

Under that rule, you are not only killing a fellow brother. But you are also branding him as something that is not human. Just as what the saying goes

"Throughout history, mankind has always invented lies to pretend that they are different from their brothers and escape the guilt of their sin. Once it was the whites to the blacks, today is the mother to her child" -Anonymous

Right from the start, the people who voted for abortion has already been doomed to be proven wrong. It is up to you to either deny it or accept the truth

Without trying to sound completely asinine, I think every individual should have the right to make decisions about their own body. If you TRULY believe that all life starts at the moment of inception, then don't get an abortion.

Forcing another woman to bear a child that may be putting her life at risk doesn't make you a God send because "Hey, the baby is okay!". To me, that is murdering someone. You hanging her out to dry shows a complete disregard for human life and, believe it or not, is actually completely hypocritical.
"Just put the child up for adoption!" So they can join the tens of thousands of children already waiting through the adoption system. Perfect solution.

Sarcasm aside. Please don't pretend like every solution will work for every individual. If you're a male, especially don't act like this really affects you, because unless the fetus in question is your's, this kind of thing (most likely) won't.

It's a social issue, it affects everyone.

You know, that whole premise of "owning" a debate or an issue, as if it were theirs and theirs alone is a cheap cop out and intellectual dishonesty. I mean, at the very onset The abortion doctor is likely a male!

Read on

There are two other factors I'd like to present to utterly crush this theory that females alone can claim the right to have a discussion on the issue, or that it's a special "right" reserved to them.

First, the emotional factors that a male faces from the abortion decision:
Yes, Men also suffer from PTSD and the likes

Secondly, and allow me to say it in Red:

The Premise that a woman "owns" the issue, has absolutely stripped the father of his responsibilities.

Such hypocrisy is disgustingly laughable

On one hand, females want to cry that it's their "issue". Yet on the other hand, they expect men to completely pay the bill(child alimony) and have absolutely no say in the process.

Now, on your part of "health of the mother"(which I extensively talked about).

Only 4% of women stated that as the most important factor

Let me go further and state it clearly, once and for all: Rape and Incest are non existent reasons

No matter what source you look at, abortion is very clearly a socio-economic problem.

Meaning that abortion isn't even a solution, it's a stop gag, a bandaid. A miserable solution in the face of much easier and more progressive ones.

Oh, and last but not least you proclaimed that if I believe life starts at conception, I shouldn't get an abortion.

Well....

If the government gave me that right, I absolutely would. But since it sees me as a sperm donor and little more, I don't have that right. This means I'm in a significantly weak position when it comes to dating when I want to have a family.

I have to actively search and find a woman who also has a pro-life position, and in our current political climate that's not easy.

Take a second to put your red highlight tool away, because I'm almost 100% positive that I stated, if the decision of abortion directly influences the man's life, i.e. the child is his, then he has every right to be involved in the decision making process! I agree with that wholeheartedly.

Telling me that most of the doctors are male doesn't really prove anything, just saying. In fact, majority of doctors are still old white men.

God forbid you have to do a little searching to find a girl with the same opinions and mindset as your's. "In our current political climate", since apparently women's rights hasn't been a thing for years, females are being criticized for taking a stand to mediate what the government is telling them they can and can't do with their bodies.
Could it go badly if it lands in the wrong hands? Will some women misuse it? I guarantee they will. Most intelligent people wouldn't condone that, but they at least deserve the respect to make their own decisions. They can have responsibility over their bodies, much like alcoholics can make the decision to keep drinking even though it's not morally acceptable nor healthy. I sound like I'm standing on a soap box, but if that's what I have to do to get the issue across, then so be it.
Even if statistically, rape and incest are the uncommon denominators in the equation, why are they suddenly not an issue, or a legitimate "reason"? They still happen, not often, but they do. Furthermore, the idea of there having to be a good reason to get an abortion is pretty stupid. Everyone has their reasons. If a couple decides that it's not the right time for a baby and they're 100% this is what they want to do, that should be enough "reason" for it to be okay for those people.

Also, I've talked to women that indeed paid for the abortion themselves, so whining that men have to do all the financial work is bull shit and you should be ashamed for even remotely acting like they take the fall for that one.

And you're correct, you don't have the right to get an abortion by the government because you don't have a uterus. A non-issue and something you shouldn't pretend to be insulted about considering you will never have to worry about getting an illegal abortion because your doctor, the one person you can trust to help, told you no. Because hey, you're going to find a girl that's Pro-Life, so how again does that affect you?

Sure it's a socio-economic issue, no doubting that. I appreciate hearing everyone's opinion on it, men and women, and I'm not out to get men. Trust me. However, pushing SO HARD to make this into a man's issue really isn't what the topic of abortion is about and I'm offended to think you would stifle another person's right to exercise judgement about their body so that you can sleep peacefully at night.