Abortion

That is one of the most romantic things I've read in a while now.

Jesus loves all living things unless they're gay.

Jesus loves all living things unless they're gay.

You've got that wrong, jesus loves all living things. Republicans hate all living things because they want jesus to love them special.

Preposterous. You cannot deny its humanity simply because you feel it justifiable to end its life under certain circumstances.

Would you call a tadpole a frog, kindly shut the fuck up.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

I'm tired of all you pro-abortion dicks

Pro-choice != pro-abortion

This is your first strike.

I want all abortion to be illegal while you want abortion to remain freely available, hmmm.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

first off, it's silly to think that the law cannot tell us what we can't do with our bodies.

The law can say whatever it wants. The only real laws that matter are the ones of physics. Unless there are laws within physics that prevent a mother from having an abortion, they very much have that "right."

On the same level that murder and rape aren't prevented by any laws.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

second, this statement totally ignores the fact that the unborn are completely separate individuals from the mother.

Except, physically, it's not.

It is biologically.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

how can someone have two heartbeats, two different blood types, two sets of DNA?

Non sequitur.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

and, if the unborn is a male, how can a woman have a male part of her body?

Non sequitur.

Neither of these are non sequiturs.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

yes, the unborn need their mother for nutrition and safety, but that does not make them any more a part of her body than some food she swallows is a part of her body.

Comparing a fetus with food? Interesting.

The claim that an unborn child is part of their mother is unfounded, that is the purpose of the comparison.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

To refute this statement, i'll tell a story about a little boy who had surgery for spina bifida before he was even born. at the end of the surgery, the baby reached out of the uterus and grabbed the doctor's finger. my question is this... who grabbed the doctor's finger? (full story: http://joseromia.tripod.com/samuel.html )

Granted I've heard this is fake, it's not who, it's what. And, a parasite grabbed the finger.

It isn't fake, and an unborn child is not a parasite.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

1% of all abortions performed annually are due to rape/incest.

Source?

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization.
 

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

why would we subject her to another, that of killing her own child?

Another violent act? You're comparing a raping to an abortion? Try again.

They are both violent acts.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

and abortion will not alleviate the trauma of the rape.

Neither will having the baby. Actually, I think it sits better in the mind of the mother who has the abortion instead of mothering a child she had due to rape. That's a great constant reminder every time you look at it. Talk about torture.

Women have children all the time, they recover. The psychological effects of abortion are far more devastating

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

using that logic, should we release all the rapists and murderers from prison to go free on the streets and allow them to do as they please, because we "cannot impose our morality on them?"

Obeying and upholding the law is not the same as imposing your morality on someone. They will stay in prison because of a criminal law, nothing to do with morality.

Murder has nothing to do with morality?

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

and know that killing a defenseless human being is wrong

Fetus.

Human.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

besides, if we start rejecting laws just because they are supported by religion, since that there is hardly anything illegal which is not also prohibited by Scripture, then we will have get rid of all of our laws.

Supported by religion and protested by religious people are different things.

How so?

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

if everyone were to follow this idea, then we would not have any security in our nation at all. if everyone just "stayed out of people's privacy," children would be molested, women would be raped in their homes, and people would kill each other and no one could do anything to stop it. we would have no security, no police force, nothing. should we stay out of someone's privacy' when they film child pornography in their basement? should we stay out of a man's 'privacy' as he beats his wife in their bedroom? should we stay out of a woman's 'privacy' as she goes to have her child intentionally torn limb from limb?

Fallacy.

Interesting claim, want to justify it?

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

abortion advocates are flat-out lying when saying thousands of women died each year from illegal abortions and their own research proves it: in 1986, the AGI (allen guttmacher institute, the research arm of planned parenthood) gave proof that shows in the fifteen years before abortion was legal, the average number of women dying from illegal abortion in America was 136 per year and falling.
remember: pro-lifers don't perform abortions. if we made abortion illegal right now, and illegal abortionists came about in the next few days, each one of them would be pro-choice. think about it: any woman that ever died or was hurt during an abortion, legal or not, it was because of someone who was pro-choice.
basically, the abortion industry tells us, "if you make abortion illegal, women will end up dying because of it." but what in reality they're saying, "if you make it illegal for us to kill babies, then we'll start killing women."

Terribly constructed argument; hard to follow. Illegal abortions are logically more likely to produce casualties based on the makeshift operation. Legality of abortion would provide funding, proper medical equipment and trained professionals to alleviate the likelihood of death.

If nobody had abortions, there would be no abortion related deaths, understand?

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

science undoubtedly proves that at the moment of conception, a new human being is formed

So, with your logic, the frame of a car on the assembly line is still considered a car because it was conceived?

Car don't have anything to do with human development.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

at that moment, everything about that new human being is determined: gender, hair color, eye color, metabolism, whether they will be right-handed or left-handed, etc.

Information itself != a human

Humans are defined by there differences and relationships, so human identity is information.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

according to the law, no.

Wait a minute, didn't you just try to say how laws can tell us what to do? Hypocrite?

The claim that laws cannot govern behaviour are invalid. You could say that laws concerning identity are self justifying, but that would justify slavery and hundreds of years of suppression of women.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

we are not advocating that the unborn have more rights than the mother. we are advocating that their rights are equal.

And with equal rights to being born or not, you propose that every single fetus wants to be born? How?

You propose that every single person wants to live? Clearly there is nothing wrong with offing a few of them, as statistically some don't want to be alive. Where's my hunting rifle?

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

parasites are something of a different species than the host.

Source?

Get a clue.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

since both the woman and the unborn are members of the genus homo sapiens, they are both human beings, and therefore of the same species.

Again, source? I don't recall any definition of parasite changing due to species.

Because there are no parasites of the same species.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

also, during pregnancy, a woman's body goes through changes to deliberately provide nutrients and protect her baby. this does not happen with a parasite.

Source?

Get a clue.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

when a woman decides to engage in sexual activity, she risks pregnancy, even if she uses birth control. an innocent human being should not have to pay with his/her blood because someone's birth control failed. if one is ready for sexual activity, one must be ready to handle the consequences of their actions.

And a way of handling it is abortion. If abortion was illegal and aggressively enforced, I bet you the amount of contraceptives used would go up.

Abortion kills, so any alternative would be welcome.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 16, 2008, 11:10:03 PM

the pro-choice thought is that if people are "acting responsibly," they should not have any consequences. but even if people "act responsible" when driving their cars can still have accidents, and are still responsible for any damage they cause.

Provided they are at fault; but you just said that rape victims have to have the baby. Yet in your analogy, if you weren't at fault, you wouldn't be liable. Change much?

See #2.

A baby starts off as a clump of cells without thought, emotion, or ability to feel pain. The main difference between a zygote and a scraping from inside your cheek is its potential to develop thoughts et cetera much later on.

Removing potential for life is not extinguishing life.

A zygote is alive.

Noses will never become anything but noses.

Remember to define human.

Offspring of homo sapiens.

I just thought I might add something. Did you know that when abortion was legalized,and then a bunch of unwanted crack babies weren't born, that 15-25 years later, when they would have all been criminals, they didn't exist so the crime rate dropped.I read that in a book called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell

So capital punishment, before any crimes are commited, brilliant.

You are so biologically wrong in all those statements I can not debate with you until you get a basic grasp of the subject you are debating.

It would be less of a waste of my time to debate astrophysics with a chimp.

You are so biologically wrong in all those statements I can not debate with you until you get a basic grasp of the subject you are debating.

It would be less of a waste of my time to debate astrophysics with a chimp.

Ad hominem much.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 06:24:39 PM

You are so biologically wrong in all those statements I can not debate with you until you get a basic grasp of the subject you are debating.

It would be less of a waste of my time to debate astrophysics with a chimp.

Ad hominem much.

I thought it would match the 20 or so appeals to emotion stuck in yours. Along with so many posts not actually disproving what they were say so much as just restating your argument as fact.

Well, if you are going to give up that's fine too.

Well, if you are going to give up that's fine too.

Give up? I've won. You couldn't debate what I've said.

I personally feel that the sole reasons someone tries to invalidate the necessity of the availability of abortions is through issues with personal guilt and emotion.

Whereas a person who is for pro-choice made the decision based on necessity.

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 17, 2008, 06:37:02 PM

Well, if you are going to give up that's fine too.

Give up? I've won. You couldn't debate what I've said.

You made claims about my arguments and didn't support them.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 06:37:47 PM

Quote from: Emir Parkreiner on November 17, 2008, 06:37:02 PM

Well, if you are going to give up that's fine too.

Give up? I've won. You couldn't debate what I've said.

You made claims about my arguments and didn't support them.

You made many claims with no support so I figured I am allowed to do the same in one instance.

You made many claims with no support so I figured I am allowed to do the same in one instance.

Please point out these unsupported claims.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 06:51:56 PM

You made many claims with no support so I figured I am allowed to do the same in one instance.

Please point out these unsupported claims.

Every single reply that was less than 4 words it is safe to assume is not backed up.

Quote from: Raist on November 17, 2008, 06:51:56 PM

You made many claims with no support so I figured I am allowed to do the same in one instance.

Please point out these unsupported claims.

Faggot. Prove me wrong.

Unsupported statments don't require a response, as they don't have any merit.

Unsupported statments don't require a response, as they don't have any merit.

But you think abortion is wrong. Clearly unmerited given certain circumstances.

However, you are a faggot. Now, proceed to prove my warranted statement false please. You will not be taken seriously on anything until you do.

Unsupported statments don't require a response, as they don't have any merit.

That is why I didn't have to respond to any of your statements. Neither do I have to prove them unsupported.

The difference being that you were throwing out vague accusations without specifying anything.

The difference being that you were throwing out vague accusations without specifying anything.

You had 20 or some responses to people that were a single word. Seriously, you consider correcting someone using the word fetus, saying it is a baby a correct counter argument?

Quote from: Recusant on November 17, 2008, 01:20:28 PM

Preposterous. You cannot deny its humanity simply because you feel it justifiable to end its life under certain circumstances.

Would you call a tadpole a frog, kindly shut the fuck up.

Yeah, I made a rather poor attempt as the devil's advocate.

I had one one-word response, to a one-word response.

I had one one-word response, to a one-word response.

Dignifying their answer. I think some were taken from a longer post though.

It's kinda funny how the discussion quickly shifted from anti-abortion to how Raist "can't refute my arguments", when Raist declared that he had won. If he truly had not won the argument, Emir could have just continued to prove his own point, which he did not.

It's kinda funny how the discussion quickly shifted from anti-abortion to how Raist "can't refute my arguments", when Raist declared that he had won. If he truly had not won the argument, Emir could have just continued to prove his own point, which he did not.

Why should I repeat myself? I think I laid it out pretty clear.

So all you've got is a bunch of appeals to emotion and anecdotal evidence? Then it is clear the Raist did win the argument.

I want all abortion to be illegal while you want abortion to remain freely available, hmmm.

Pro-life = all life must come to fruition. I'm not advocating that everyone have abortions, thus it's not pro-abortion. I simply advocate that the choice be there. It's rather interesting that you're advocating a dictator-type side as opposed to a democratic one.

On the same level that murder and rape aren't prevented by any laws.

Exactly.

It is biologically.

Biologically different != separated - you know, cause of that whole umbilical thing.

The claim that an unborn child is part of their mother is unfounded, that is the purpose of the comparison.

Unfounded? Cells of the mother, forming inside the body of the mother, and being attached to the mother isn't part of the mother? That's a new one.

It isn't fake, and an unborn child is not a parasite.

"An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host."

A fetus is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered in the mother, while contributing nothing to the survival of its host, the mother.

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions:
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion organization.

Rather small sample size, but doesn't do much against the other points.
 

They are both violent acts.

What is violent in abortion? Suction? Taking a pill? I've never really heard of any method that is rough and destructive.

The psychological effects of abortion are far more devastating

The psychological effects of having the abortion are worse than the effects of reminding yourself of the rape? Is that a joke?

Murder has nothing to do with morality?

Straw man.

How so?

Something supported in the texts or teachings of a religion does not mean that it is preached and advocated for.

Interesting claim, want to justify it?

Sure, it's an appeal to emotion. Instead of having a logically sound argument, you introduce "bad" things like molestation and such as to appeal to the emotions of the reader, rather than have a good argument.

If nobody had abortions, there would be no abortion related deaths, understand?

And if no one delivered a baby, there would be no birth-related deaths, understand?

Car don't have anything to do with human development.

That's besides the point. With your logic, that's how it works.

Humans are defined by there differences and relationships, so human identity is information.

-_-

The claim that laws cannot govern behaviour are invalid. You could say that laws concerning identity are self justifying, but that would justify slavery and hundreds of years of suppression of women.

So, you accept and deny laws as you see fit?

You propose that every single person wants to live?

No, clearly not everyone does; there are these things called suicides.

Get a clue.

Well, I did some searching for you. Some definitions have it, some don't. Oh well.

Get a clue.

I'm serious. I would like a source showing that the body of a host doesn't change when it has a parasite, as you claim.

Abortion kills, so any alternative would be welcome.

Life kills, so any alternative would be welcome.

See #2.

#2?

A zygote is alive.

Based on?

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=272

Quote

Abortion kills, so any alternative would be welcome.

Life kills, so any alternative would be welcome.

Life: Nobody gets out alive