man, their is such a huge philosophical argument here, supporting the 10 months and supporting 1st degree murder... coming from me its hypocritical considering i dont protest to abortion in the first trimester (prior to the baby having a brainstem i argue its not a human life).

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
It doesn't hold up logically, but then, neither does the pro-abortion argument. Those who support abortion argue for a position, which, if practiced on them, would result in their non-existence. How hypocritical.

---

Matt I completly agree w/ you there 100%. I'm against abortion (w/ the exception of rape victims and rare cases that endanger the mother's life and would make it hard for the father to raise the family, but thats another argument in its own) and when I see people for abortion I think hey you should be pro-life, your mother was/is.

You cannot bitch about poverty, overpopulation and child neglect then be anti-abortion. Or is it okay for it to occur in the 3rd world but not here?

It sounds like you guys are the hypocrites.

the way i see it, until the child has a brain stem it is not a human life, true it is potential, but its NOT... this is my opinion, as until that brain stem developes i see it as a gob of goo... anyway... it is the MOTHERS choice to abort or not, i believe she should have this right (not use it as birth control ie abortion after abortion), she should have the right to choose what happens within her body. if she does not want to continue she shouldnt be forced to continue with it....

now, what carruth and company did, was take a life (the babys) that the mother CHOSE to become a human life. she chose to have the child (continue with pregnancy), so THEN its going to be a life barring any unforseen circumstances (natural in cause). what they did was take this life away, they took her choice away (as well as her life)... 10 months is quite nothing... if i ever knock a chick up or anyone who realizes this is all they get... all it takes is a swift kick and its done.... i go to jail for??? 10 months max? imagine some of the kids who realize this.... why not just kick the baby and cause an abortion, hell it saves you the trouble of being a daddy and paying child support.... this sends a very bad message... i always thought the manson family were convicted of not only sharon tades murder but her baby's too?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spawn:
Unless you have a uterus then you have NO opinion on this matter! This would not be an issue if men could have children. This is just another way that men are trying to control women.[/B}

---

Well, another nominal intellect gets involved. Show me a woman that has had a child of her own accord. That entire "my box, my choice" line of reasoning fails to take into account that there are a LOT of choices to be made BEFORE a woman gets pregnant. The stork doesn't drop the baby off......and women don't create fetuses on their own.

Your reasoning admits that a woman cannot control her body - she gets pregnant when she doesn't want to. According to YOUR logic (not mine.....you said it) women can't control themselves.

[B]

quote:

---

You cannot bitch about poverty, overpopulation and child neglect then be anti-abortion. Or is it okay for it to occur in the 3rd world but not here?

It sounds like you guys are the hypocrites.

---

I don't exactly know where this topic is on this thread. You are introducing extraneous topics as if to strengthen your own emotion-based stance.

It is obvious you know nothing of logical reasoning or defending a position.

You seem to be too emotionally involved to have a rational conversation about this matter.

I did not make one emotional or irrational claim. All of my positions are logically backed up.

So I'll try again, with smaller words.

You are the one that said "you can't even speak on the matter" if you don't have a uterus. I refuted that, pointing out that a woman can't reproduce on her own. (They can't, in case you aren't in that grade yet). Therefore, since it takes both man and woman to create a fetus, both opinions are valid.

Then you said, "this would not be an issue if men could have children". This is purely hypothetical.

Since the premise "if men could have children" is false, ANYTHING follows. This is fallacious reasoning. "If men could have children, I would be able to fly" is as logically sounds as what you said. Keep the argument on Earth, where the females of the species have the children.

With me so far?

After that, you introduced a completely irrelevant topic to the thread...no one in this discussion has used third world issues or child neglect to take a stance...certainly I did not. Your statement has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE. It's like me saying "dinosaurs used to eat their young". Totally irrelevant.

Now...I invite disagreement if you have a logical argument. But if you don't wish to defend your position, then don't respond with some tripe that someone else told you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
Spawn,

I did not make one emotional or irrational claim. All of my positions are logically backed up.

YOU ARE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED IN THE ABORTION BECAUSE YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT THIS ISSUE DEALS WITH THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE CONTROL OVER THEIR BODY. JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE FOR CHOICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE FOR ABORTION OR DID THAT SLIP YOUR FEEBLE MIND?

So I'll try again, with smaller words.

THANK YOU KIND SIR. I WILL DO MY BEST TO UNDERSTAND YOUR ACADEMIC LANGUAGE. MAYBE YOU COULD WRITE IT IN SPANISH, FRENCH OR ITALIAN. I SPEAK THOSE LANGUAGES ALSO. OR ARE YOU UNILINGUAL?

You are the one that said "you can't even speak on the matter" if you don't have a uterus. I refuted that, pointing out that a woman can't reproduce on her own. (They can't, in case you aren't in that grade yet). Therefore, since it takes both man and woman to create a fetus, both opinions are valid.

THE MAN HAS A CHOICE IN THE MATTER AND IT ENDS WHEN HE EJACULATES INTO THE FEMALE. THEREFORE THE DECESION TRANSERS TO THE FEMALE SINCE THE MAN'S RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING ENDED WHEN HE CHOSE TO TAKE THE CHANCE AND EJACULATE INTO THE FEMALE.

Then you said, "this would not be an issue if men could have children". This is purely hypothetical.

SO THAT MEANS YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT I AM CORRECT.

Since the premise "if men could have children" is false, ANYTHING follows. This is fallacious reasoning. "If men could have children, I would be able to fly" is as logically sounds as what you said. Keep the argument on Earth, where the females of the species have the children.

I WILL TRY NOT TO CONFUSE YOU ANYMORE WITH USING LOGIC TO CONSTRUCT A PLAUSIBLE THOERY. I GUESS YOU NEED INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN BY AN AUTHORITY FIGURE BEFORE YOU CAN BELEIVE IT. IT IS OKAY TO THINK FOR YOURELF...REALLY.

With me so far?

YES SIR.

After that, you introduced a completely irrelevant topic to the thread...no one in this discussion has used third world issues or child neglect to take a stance...certainly I did not. Your statement has ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE. It's like me saying "dinosaurs used to eat their young". Totally irrelevant.

IT IS VERY RELAVENT BECAUSE THE ANTI-ABORTON STANCE IS ENTERRENCHED IN CONSERVATIVE TENDENCIES. THEREFORE CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO ALSO BE AGAINST WELFARE AND LOOK DOWN ON THE IMPOVERISHED. IF YOU ARE INDEPENDENT BUT YOU EXHIBIT ANTI-ABORTION FEELINGS THEN YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO FEEL NEGATIVELY TOWARDS POVERTY, OVERCROWDING...ETC.

Now...I invite disagreement if you have a logical argument. But if you don't wish to defend your position, then don't respond with some tripe that someone else told you.

YES SIR

---

I agree that individuals should have control over their bodies. But that means control when deciding to have sex also...knowing the potential consequences, and not looking for an easy way out from their lack of foresight. Irresponsibility leads to unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancy leads to abortion. Therefore abortion is irresponsible. It is easy to not get pregnant.

I WILL DO MY BEST TO UNDERSTAND YOUR ACADEMIC LANGUAGE. MAYBE YOU COULD WRITE IT IN SPANISH, FRENCH OR ITALIAN. I SPEAK THOSE LANGUAGES ALSO. OR ARE YOU UNILINGUAL?

I speak German,as if that matters on this topic. Keep it in the ballpark. You are pulling poor attempts at insults out of thin air. Is English your first language? Doesn't sound like it.

THE MAN HAS A CHOICE IN THE MATTER AND IT ENDS WHEN HE EJACULATES INTO THE FEMALE. THEREFORE THE DECESION TRANSERS TO THE FEMALE SINCE THE MAN'S RIGHT TO SAY SOMETHING ENDED WHEN HE CHOSE TO TAKE THE CHANCE AND EJACULATE INTO THE FEMALE.

So it ends when the fetus is created? If the man's part ends when the fetus is created, then you are also implying that single motherhood is the best way to go. Crime and academic statistics would prove you very wrong. I will be the FIRST to admit that unwanted pregnancy requires TWO irresponsible people.

Then you said, "this would not be an issue if men could have children". This is purely hypothetical.

SO THAT MEANS YOU DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT I AM CORRECT.

No. It means your premise does not have any logical consequences whatsoever. this is philosophy 101 stuff.

Since the premise "if men could have children" is false, ANYTHING follows. This is fallacious reasoning. "If men could have children, I would be able to fly" is as logically sounds as what you said. Keep the argument on Earth, where the females of the species have the children.

I WILL TRY NOT TO CONFUSE YOU ANYMORE WITH USING LOGIC TO CONTRUCT PLAUSIBLE THOERY. I GUESS YOU NEED INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN BY AN AUTHORITY FIGURE BEFORE YOU CAN BELEIVE IT. IT IS OKAY TO THINK FOR YOURELF...REALLY.

"Logic" dictates that if the first premise is false, then anything follows. If you want to try to arrive at a conclusion, it would help if your starting premise was not false.

As far as "thinking for myself"....where have I cited one authority figure or claim? I haven't. This is just a weak attempt to discredit me (not my argument).

IT IS VERY IRRELAVENT BECAUSE THE ANTI-ABORTON STANCE IS ENTERRENCHED IN CONSERVATIVE TENDENCIES. THEREFORE CONSERVATIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO ALSO BE AGAINST WELFARE AND LOOK DOWN ON THE IMPOVERISHED. IF YOU ARE INDEPENDENT BUT YOU EXHIBIT ANTI-ABORTION FEELINGS THEN YOU ARE MORE LIKELY TO FEEL NEGATIVELY TOWARDS POVERTY, OVERCROWDING...ETC.

I'll ignore the fact that you wrote "very irrelevant" and assume you meant "very relevant". My anti-aboriton stance is merely that...not part of some conservative ideology. (Why do YOU cite ideologies and tell me about thinking for myself?)

I'm done with you. The money is on the dresser.

Ich bin gl�cklich, da� Sie Deutsches sprechen. Ich sage, da� Sie ein moron sind. Wir k�nnen sprechen, sobald Sie Sein ein st�rrischer Esel und zuzulassen beendet werden da� die Welt nicht um Sie rotiert. Sie k�nnen, wichtig Ihre Meinung einmal Sie sind erzogen ist.

He faces up to 20 years for the conspiracy to commit murder charge.

Sie verstehen auch Deutsch? Wo wohnen Sie? Wahrscheinlich nicht in die Vereinigten Staaten?! Wieviele Sprachen kennen Sie?

"Moron" bedeutet "moron" auch auf Deutsch? Wirklich?

I am not from the states. I learned German in my childhood at boarding school in Berlin. I know about 6 languages but that is because I am international relations with a Swiss corporation. I am currently in located Bern but I am on business in the capital of Canada today.

austin, you are a living breathing creature, right? you THINK therefor you are... right? what makes you "alive"? is it your heart beat? your brain activity? what if your brain was somehow damaged? what if it were possible to remove the part of the brain responsible for all memories and thoughts, however allowing it to still be active? you would not "think" how you do now, you would not remember anything... would you be alive? add to this your in a bed in a hospital or a room, isolated... are you still alive? or dead? i'd say you were no longer you.......

Attempted murder and murder are legally two different things, whether a child, fetus, or adult. Attempted murder carries a much lesser sentence, obviously. I am sure that actually murdering an unborn baby carries a much stiffer sentence than attempting to murder one, as in this case.

I think the only question in THIS case is: Does *attempted murder* of an unborn carry the *same* sentence as attempted murder of a (born) child? I don't know.

good to hear it lived, i didnt know that i just kind of figured it died... i watched very little of the case, i just saw the verdict and the count of attempting to kill a baby only getting 10 months, for some reason i thought it said KILLING a baby...

regardless, this dirt bag still will end up getting league pay, as all former nfl players get... just like oj, and though the ex players claim its not a lot, its liveable...

The Carolina Panthers should set up a trust fund for him.

Blue eyed, I hope some one does take care of his father. Any man [I use the word man loosly in this case] can be a father, but it takes a real man to be a dad.

If it was me would it be a hard choice? Yes. Is it a choice? YES. Would I have chosen differently than the woman involved? YES.

My mother had a son who was born with massive birth defects because the science of the time could not detect it. Would she, if she had known aborted? Fucking right.

And Matt, before you say how I turn things around to me, the issue is always one of personal belief and conviction....your scientific proselytising won't work.

If a woman aborts her pregnancy it is legal. If I am driving her TO the abortion clinic and I cause a wreck that kills the child, it becomes murder.

If you look at it from the unborn's perspective, it is the same.

If you look at it from the potential mother's perspective, it is entirely different.

But, then again, I am just rambling from my poop hole anyway...

now if the lady WANTED to keep the baby, but it was somehow forced to be aborted, THEN that is different... she WANTED the baby, she made her choice... after all its what the woman wants 90% of the time...

I feel that "only stupid people are breeding," and abortion in most cases only improves the gene pool, not to mention helps with over-population, especially in foreign countries.

Therefore, I am absolutely 100% pro-abortion, even though I think the "it's a women's body" arguement is pretty weak.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kat:
Matt, for your information, I am adopted, which means the woman decided against abortion obviously.

---

Good for her. And for you.

quote:

---

originally posted by kat:
do I give a damn that if she chose the other course of aciton I wouldnt be here? No. I dont give a shit.[QUOTE]

If it is the case that you don't give a shit, there is only one conclusion: You are displeased with your life here. If so, please keep your negativity to yourslef, lest your displeasure with your life contaminate others.

If that is not the case, then your statement is irrational.

[QUOTE] Originally posted bt Kat:
My mother had a son who was born with massive birth defects because the science of the time could not detect it. Would she, if she had known aborted? Fucking right.[QUOTE]

Those are tough situations. Few would blame her for aborting it, given that. having the baby in light of those issues would speak volumes of a person's courage.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by kat:
And Matt, before you say how I turn things around to me, the issue is always one of personal belief and conviction....your scientific proselytising won't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
kat, believe what you want to believe.

---

I love to see you dismiss people's claims about an issue but expect everyone else to take your claims and views seriously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 2Thick:

I love to see you dismiss people's claims about an issue but expect everyone else to take your claims and views seriously.

---

It wasn't meant as dismissive. I respect others' opinions...she can think what she wants. We disagree....so be it. I just want to try to point out a different perspective, as she has. I'm not inherently disrespectful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Snapper55:
come on guys, a woman's body is her own F-ing business......

---

Snapper,

I AGREE 100% that a woman should have control over her body.

She has the choice of whether or not to have sex. She has the choice of whether or not to make the guy wear a rubber. (55 cents for almost 100% birth control).

Pregnancies don't just happen. There is no such thing as an "unwanted pregnancy", because it is so easy to control it. If you truly don't WANT to get pregnant, you will not.

Once the choices are made, the die is cast....abortion is a way of avoiding the consequences of your actions, which seems to be the way most people think.

Abortion ranks just behind suicide in the list of cowardly acts.

It's not a religious or conservative viewpoint. It's my own viewpoint based on the fact if abortion were practiced on me I would not be here.

Usually I agree with your political views so this is surprising. Are you against ALL forms of abortion? I would have to assume so, since being a rational man you will realise that saying a baby created out of rape/incest/etc. is less important than one created out of love is totally ABSURD.

What about an embryo? What about possible organ growing from these that will save lives?

My view is to treat the baby for what it is at the current time. Meaning if it is a single cell it holds no more worth than a paramecium or a euglena. Until it can have a mature mind it is no more significant than say, a frog.

Now I know what you may be thinking, so is it ok to murder a 1 year old since it is not any smarter than a chimpanzee? Absolutely not. I am against anything that blurs the line between murder and non-murder, and am therefore against partial-birth abortion, but nothing else.

Do you see where I am coming from?

"Unless you have a uterus then you have NO opinion on this matter!"

"This is just another way that men are trying to control women."

To clear this up, you are the one who made the first emotional statement(s) in this argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kat:
But Matt..if you werent here, why would you care?

---

Because I think life is wonderful and I enjoy it all the time, even when things aren't going my way....I'm truly saddened (I mean that) if you don't. You are missing out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kat:
I mean, SERIOUSLY...are YOU so inherently special to the continuation of the speices that the world couldnt live without you? I know it can live without me, just as it could have lived without Beethovan had his mother had the abortion she planned to

---

This has absolutely no relevance to the context of the thread. It was NEVER about the propogation of the species. It was about the decision to carry to term ONE PREGNANCY - the context was the individual, not the sprecies. Let's stay in context.

quote:

---

originally posted by kat
noone, not even Jesus Friggin christ himself is that gaddamn special. And wouldnt it have been nice if Hitlers mother had an abortion? I think so.

---

The Hitler argument is without merit. Someone else would have stepped into Germany's power vacuum during their postwar depression and risen to power. That other person could have just as easily rebuilt Germany's military and started the war. It was Hitler's manical Jew-hatred that cost him the war. A more calculating leader would have Europe still speaking German. The "what-if" argument is always fallacious.

Also, your context shift is again apparent. It is not about "can the species live without an individual?" Naturally it can.

I am against abortion in all cases. I don't think the government should ban it - it isn't their place. It should be kept legal, but discouraged, and other options more aggressively publicized. Banning it would only lead to "backroom abortions" which are worse for baby and mother.

I understand (though I don't condone) the "rape and incest" argument. BUT, I have read that rape is such a traumatic experience that concpetion takes place at 2% of the rate of consensual sex. So while it does occur, it gets way too much publicity in this argument. Incest...I'm not sure what kind of statistics are available, but again.....rare.

I agree with you that abortion should be discouraged also. The only people I have the real problem with are the fanatics like the constitution party.

Similarly, the mother's causal role in the conception of the fetus does not grant it the right to use her body for nine months, and it does not remove her right to decide what to do with that body. If she decides to kill the fetus, it is not a case of unjust killing, because as the burgler, the fetus has no right to be there.

Granted, it would be supremely nice of the mother to allow the fetus the use of her body for those nine months, but she cannot be morally prohibited from not doing so. We may call her unkind or selfish, but we may not call her morally incorrect.

I find that whole argument lacking. It is a replacement excuse for irresponsibility.

On the what if issues, where is it recorded that Beethoven's mother wanted to abort him? Would the world have missed him. In retrospect I believe the world would be much different if he had not lived. The same would be true if Newton, Bach, Keppler, Brahm's, Einstein, Euclid, Tolemy, etc. What did soem of these people have in common, some were considered studpid, some were deaf, some, were poor and some were rich. In each case the contributions to the human race could not be appreciated except with hind site.

Every life, potential life, has the ability to impact the human race. Abortion is the means by which we abort humans to prevent their contribution to the race. Whether it is from intellect or by other ways.

I would suspect that some who are pro abortion would also be unable to understand why a mother and father can recieve ultimate joy from watching their little baby sleep.

Every time I hear the cry's of it is my body, I have a fucking right to do with it as I please, really speaks of that persons moral and ethical intentions.

What about partial birth abortions, here they wait until the head starts to crown and then they kill the baby. What the fuck! If I did that I would be charged with first degree murder, even if the woman consented to it.

Oh yeah, Hitler, what if he had been accepted to the Vienna Art School? He more than likely would have not ruled Germany.

But as Matt pointed at what if's are invalid in most cases except as an philisopical/intellectual exercise.

As far as partial-birth abortions, or late abortions in general, I disagree with them, not only based on personal preference but moral obligation.
At the beginning of a pregnancy, the mother faces a choice of whether or not to permit the fetus the right to use her body for the next nine months. If she does not allow it to do so, then it has no right to be there. If it has no right to be there, then killing it is not an unjust killing. However, should she decide not to get an abortion for seven months, knowing there is a fetus inside her with but one intention - to use her body for life support - then she has given it tacit consent to this use. In much the same way as we give tacit consent for a waiter to pick up the five dollar bill we leave on the table at the end of his meal as a tip - without telling him "you may have this 5 dollar bill" - the mother gives tacit consent to the fetus for use of her body by allowing it to remain there for an extended period of time.

chesty, I'm not sure what you are arguing.
A person's possible "contribution to the world" can be good, bad or neutral. That has no bearing on his/her rights to use the body of another human being for life support.
Suppose that a scientist has discovered the cure for AIDS, but has contracted a kidney disease. You are the only person biologically suitable to interface with him, and the doctor tells you that for the next nine months, you have to stay hooked up to him, while your kidneys clean out his blood in addition to your own. Can you be punished for refusing to make this sacrifice?

As far as your comment on "being thankful, endangerment of the human race, etc.", I do not consider those arguments, rather aimless emotionalisms.

I find that preposterous.
Nice arguement when parents every day who usually are completely anti abortion beat their PRECIOUS children to death...burn them with cigarettes and such other heinous crimes. Oh yes, that is ever so much better than realizing that you would not make a good parent and the world is better off without your spawn.....

As for my arguments of contributions to the human race. You made my point. We do not know what those are good bad or indifferent. Who are we to look at the present and decide what the future should be based on someones contribution or lack there of. We the world are the sum total collection of all the choices, contributions and lack thereof of every human that has gone before us.

To imply that the woman gives consent to the fetus to use her body, implies that the fetus is making a concious decision on wanting to be alive and is seeking permission to use the womans body as a host. If this ist the case then that human being has all the rights and privelages of a human being already in this world.

The difference between me choosing to be hooked up to the dying patient for 9 months is that I have the choice to make as well as the patient who has the ability to ask for my help. That patient can make the plea to live whereas an unborn child cannot make that plea.

I suggest to all those who have not seen one and support abortion, watch one take place. Pay close attention as the doctor slices the infant up into little pieces and then sucks them out of the body. It has been shown that those little babies do feel pain.

Kat, I agree shit happens no matter how careful you are. But I would put forth this, would you discuss the option with your partner? If he was against it would you consider adopotion? Given your angst against kids and such (not a problem). If you take care of your body during the term it will rebound nicely after the birth (if that is a concern at all)

The most likely reason your doctors won't due the procedure is that you are young, and it can cause all kinds of hormonal imbalance and just per chance (albeit slim for you) you do decide to have kids. You won't be able to and you would be very pissed and could possibly come at the doctor who did the procedure.

There are shots that last for up to two years now, so if you are tolerant of the pill then this would work nicely and is as close to 100% as you can get other than not having sex at all.

------------------
At my signal unleash hell.

Strength and Honor

I make it a point to never date guys who want children to avoid such a calamity happening. I feel I as am responsible as one can get under the circumstances, and yes, if I forget even one pill, I abstain for the rest of the month. I feel that strongly about it....however, it breaks my heart to see people who do not deserve children abusing them, and would do anything to protect a child from harm, as they are indeed, innocent.

-------------------------------------------
"The difference between me choosing to be hooked up to the dying patient for 9 months is that I have the choice to make..."
-------------------------------------------
You also have a choice to make as to whether to grant the fetus the right to use your body for nine months - I'm sorry, but no difference.

-------------------------------------------
"...as well as the patient who has the ability to ask for my help. That patient can make the plea to live whereas an unborn child cannot make that plea.
-------------------------------------------
Suppose that the patient is unconscious and has no idea what's going on. You are approached by a third party - a doctor for example - who tells you that if you don't agree to the 9 month ordeal, the scientist will die. Does the fact that the scientist lacks an ability to make a plea influence his right to use your body for nine months?

There is a big difference between scientist and unborn child. It is dealing with a person who is already here, if he asks and you say yes or no no one can fault you. If you are asked by a third party that party is speaking on behalf of the unconscious scientist and if you say yes or no you again cannot be faulted.

Who is speaking for the unborn child? Certainly not the child and certainly not anyone else. Therefore, it is a one sided argument because the child cannot make the request.

I am referring to late first trimester and beyond abortions. If you have ever seen a late first trimester abortion it is a bloody gruesome event.

------------------
At my signal unleash hell.

Strength and Honor

If it easier for you, imagine a scenario in which you have been kidnapped in the middle of the night by a group of his fellow scientists who have brought you to the hospital and instructed the doctor to hook your kidneys up to the scientist. No-one is speaking for him or to him, for he is not awake. He has not decided to hook himself up to you. The doctor wakes you up and tells you that his fellow scientists have kidnapped you in order to save his life, and that to do so, you have to stay hooked up to him for the next nine months. The doctor also tells you that you may refuse, and he will certainly unhook you if you do, but that the scientist will die.
If you decid not to stay hooked up, no-one could say you are morally wrong, since you did not ask to get hooked up.

If the woman truley does not want to get pregnant the only sure fire way is to never have sex again in her life. It is a choice she makes and must live with.

Know one twisted her arm or held a gun to her head and said have sex. (again except in rape cases)

Even in your last scenario the dying scientist still told the donor that he had the choice of not donating or donating. Where does the unborn child get to make this statement? It doesn't. In your argument people made a conscious decision to kidnap you (the presumed woman) in order to save the dying scientist (the unborn child) the scientist woke up and explained the situation to you and gave you the choice, not the state telling you you have the
choice to as to whether the scientist lives or dies without his thoughts or that you have cart blanc in the decision regardless of the wishes of the scientist.

------------------
At my signal unleash hell.

Strength and Honor

Back to the main issue, which isn't really the main issue of MB's thread. I could say the same type of arguments that Chesty and Matt brought up, but I'm in a rush because I have to do some college research.

By the way, I heard Bush cut off Federal Aid for abortions? Any truth to it or any more details?

Many of your sceanrios are almost but not quite relevant. The organ donor one, the scientist.....all are interesting arguments, debatable on their own, but they remain irrelevant.

As such I refute some of your principal claims. The mother's choice of allowing the fetus to use her body is not made AFTER she is pregnant.

The choice occurs when she puts herself in a position to get pregnant. The bottom line is, if someone does NOT want to get pregnant, they will not. It can be avoided. It doesn't "just happen".

Fetuses don't just "show up" and hope that a mother will "allow them to develop inside her". That claim of yours is pure nonsense. Any potential merit of your claim assumes that the mother had no role in the pregnancy. foolish!

Women KNOW that ONLY as a result of sex could they get pregnant. That is the ONLY way it could happen. As such, the fetus is not petitioning the mother for use of her body.

Instead.the mother is bearing the result of engaging in an act that is designed to propogate the species.

If you notice too I have avoided the use of the word fetus. Fetus is a medical definition of a developing specie early in its beginning. I use the term unborn child (human) because that is what it is, it will not be born a fish or bear or dolphin, but a human. I feel that the use of the term fetus has gotten out of hand and has been used to desensitize the population to the real fact of what is going on.

The whole argument over when is there life at what point does the fetus become alive or human? It was always human and was always alive. The two separate cells the egg and the sperm are both living cells. When combined they complete the DNA sequence and continue to grow and live and become more complex as time goes on. Everything that characterizes the child at full term and ten years later and so on. All of that is programmed into the unborn child.

The point to this is that the unborn child is alive if in even in its earliest and most primitive beginnings at the instant the egg and sperm join.

To whoever got emotional about being in a hospital, I was not ridiculing your typo, I was ridiculing the expression itself. You contributed little to the argument.
[also, I never claimed to be intelligent]

First, to Matt:

"The mother's choice of allowing the fetus to use her body is not made AFTER she is pregnant. "