Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
:

A fetus is a part of the mother until it is born. It can't think for itself, can it? Therefore, it is nothing more than any other part of a woman's body, such as an arm or a leg.

Ok.....

So you think we should spend $5 million+ to grow a kid than's not even wanted? We already have an overpopulation problem in the world. And BTW, who do you think should raise that child afterwards?

I would sure like to know how the ability to think can determine whether or not an unborn child is part of its mother, like an arm or a leg.

By the way, all of modern medical science indicates that an unborn child is its own separate entity, from conception to birth and beyond. And you don't need a Phd in biology to understand that an unborn child isn't exactly the same thing as a arm, a leg or any other body part you can name...

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
If there isn't anything in the Constitution that denies the Supreme Court a certain power, it does not mean that the Supreme Court can assume that power.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. They have the final say in all US legal matters. Roe vs. Wade brought abortion to them, they ruled. They're expected to make current interpretations of the words of the Constitution. That's their job. If Congress wanted to overrule the Supreme Court, they'd have to make a Constitutional amendment.
Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would. Abortions require no actual sincisions to be made. To successfully remove a fetus during the normal abortion time period would be next to impossible (since it's tiny and directly linked to the mother) and would take major lower andominal surgery (and therefore put the woman at risk). I don't believe that we could do it with even a remote chance of success. Sides, the fetus would just die soon after removal anyway.

ok im all for women rites to choose but isnt that just a fancy name for murder i this situation-its all properganda-they have rites to choose like all people but does that mean its ok for women to kill a person grown up-they say its not a person yet but it has a heart beat and can react to is=ts envirnment and even think-so just because its not fully capable we can kill it rite ...no! ---people dont kill people if they have mental problems or are handicapped..c'mon people if you think killing an innocent baby is rite you got problems...another thing its imoral-now you may not stick to moral but do you murder--people who get abortions are usyally teens and people in there 20's because they arnt ready for a child but adoption is there -they only yime i can think of abortion being rite is if the women will die from either having the baby or medical complications from having him that will kill her........even if the baby will be sick or mentally challenged he will still live even if they will live to only 3 its still a life that could have meaning.

It's easy to judge things as immoral when you're on the outside looking in.

yes thats true but im not axactly a moral king-im not a bad person but ive done things that were not moral-i dont like to judge people, unless i do, and now i dont.

Well, wanting to ban abortion is totally judging other people and making them do what you want them to do.

Ok razorace I believe that it was you who said on like page 1 or 2 of this thread that you could have died before being born if the doctors had done something to your mom.Now that you look at it, even though your mom could have been in danger because of you, would you have wanted her to have an abortion? Then you wouldn't be in this world.

I simply believe that people should be given the choice to have a baby if they become pregnant, especially in this day and age when there has been an explosion in the number of teenage and unwanted pregnancies. If abortion was illegal, and the mother didn't want the baby, do you think the baby would live a happy life after it was born?

i think it is wrong atleast if u don't want the kid then give it to someone else don't kill it it is a human being i mean that is just wrong if u ask me but u didn't so who cares

I am completely pro-choice - the choice whether or not to have sex, and thus get yourself pregnant. But you don't have the choice to commit murder. If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex. That way, there's no problem with the woman getting pregnant; she won't. And you're not killing something quite alive. Whoever said that they're not thinking by the time most abortions happened - you're wrong. The brain is functioning by six weeks I think is the right time. And most abortions happen after that because most women don't know they're pregnant till shortly before then. The ants argument is different too - ants are not human. Human life is viewed as precious in most civilized cultures around the world. Ants' lives are not. Why? Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex.

And you think this will somehow change for the better in the future? According to this view, the world is going to Hell. Fast.

Sex is a primitive thing. Sex between apes and humans (not that way) has taken on the role of enjoyment and past time. It strengthens the community, and a great way to enjoy yourself. This is how it has always been, like it or not, except during the puritanical 19th century.

I'm just going to sit back and watch as abortions get more and more common, and that populations in China and India rise to the point of massive starvation without abortion. The future is surely looking bleak for those who claim the moral high ground in this matter. Nothing but death and suffering for those who succesfully gets rid of abortions in the aforementioned countries.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
If teenage girls don't have enough brains to realize that sex usually ends up with pregnancy, then somebody messed up bringing them up. Same with the guys. If people don't want to have to deal with a pregnancy - then don't have sex.

It's real, real easy to say that from an outside point of view. Harder to actually follow through with it.

Abstinence... a perfect method of prevention... but really, it's no fun at all.

Not entirely true. A lot of the people I know have already had sex; I have no problem waiting. It really comes down to your morality and whether you've got the guts to stick with your values.

But my point is, if you don't want the baby, don't put yourself in a situation where you're probably going to get it. Don't buy something if you're not willing to pay the cost, if you get my meaning. In other words, don't have sex if you're not willing to have a baby, because your only other option at that point is murder.

I have no problem waiting.

How many times have you actually been put into the situation?

Try going to a club sometime. Have a girl grinding up against you, whispering stuff in your ear. Get some alcohol into your system. See how fast your "morals" get washed away.

Not putting yourself in the situation... well, youd be surprised how often the situation can arise, even at the most unexpected moments.

I guess it's different with different people.

Originally posted by ShockV1.89
I guess it's different with different people.

These different, morally superior people are also blissfully unaware that literally thousands of people are dying of starvation and horrible sanitation in India and China because they're simpoly too many people.

For them, it's not about being morally decadent and having sex all the time, but the mere fact that if they don't have children, even more people are going to die because there'll be no one to feed the old people any more.

Abortion helps though - it cuts down on the family size and helps save thousands of lives in the long run.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
The ants argument is different too - ants are not human. Human life is viewed as precious in most civilized cultures around the world. Ants' lives are not. Why? Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.

Oh? In buddhist(Or something,whichever that karate guy in "Karate Kid III: :D),a roach(not much different from an ant,mentally) is sacred. They believe all life is sacred. We,on the other hand, think that we are the most sacred being in the world.

(What I think of the meaning of life)

The ability to comprehend one's existance.

Babies cannot do that,so to me,they arent really alive and such.

(Bah,I'm just rambling..)

Originally posted by C'jais
These different, morally superior people are also blissfully unaware that literally thousands of people are dying of starvation and horrible sanitation in India and China because they're simpoly too many people.

For them, it's not about being morally decadent and having sex all the time, but the mere fact that if they don't have children, even more people are going to die because there'll be no one to feed the old people any more.

Abortion helps though - it cuts down on the family size and helps save thousands of lives in the long run.

What are you talking about? Are you saying now that its better to have sex and children so they can feed old people but you still want abortion? Or maybe I am just reading your reply wrong.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
What are you talking about? Are you saying now that its better to have sex and children so they can feed old people but you still want abortion? Or maybe I am just reading your reply wrong.

'Thing is, they're simply too many people.

It will cause lots and lots of fatalities if they suddenly decided to simply stop breeding.

It will cause even more if they decided to breed the way they've always done. In the long run.

It will cause less if they decide to get abortions to take care of unwanted pregnancies. It will help make a better future for the next generations.

And no, it's not silly teenage pregnancies I'm talking about here. It's between grown men and women who apparently find it hard to resist the urge to reproduce "for fun".

Abortion helps keep the family size to a minimum.

Thats why the condom was invented. It has like a 98% chance of working so for those who want to have sex and not have children, they should use em. (I'm talking about the adults)

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Thats why the condom was invented. It has like a 98% chance of working so for those who want to have sex and not have children, they should use em. (I'm talking about the adults)

Sadly, these countries have not yet been enlightened in The Way of The Condom.

They're still brutal savages who like to have sex first, and then remove the unwanted pregnancy if it's a girl, for example.

My understand is that the brain doesn't start producing human brainwaves til the third trimester. That's why a lot of legal stuff kicks in at that time.

I Agee.

Originally posted by Tyrion
They believe all life is sacred.

And run into a paradox, real, real quick.

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
And run into a paradox, real, real quick.

Whatcha mean?

What do you define as "human" brainwaves? Where is the level where they're not human anymore? Because some Alzheimers' patients have lower brainwave function that those first trimester babies. But we don't kill them for research.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And read this website... all of it. (http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html)

Oh, please. Why don't you at least try to come up with a site that tells the facts first, and its opinions second, with a clear line between the two. This is how descent people do. It makes it easier to both judge and use the material (since you know the opinions of the writer, but you don't have to sift the facts from the opinions).

What this site shows is a text-book example of how not to publish stuff, which can be said for the great, great majority of anti-choice and anti-evolution websites. Flashy, unrelated pics, text that mingles fact and opinion, little or no documentation, ect, ect. That's bad practice, which every graduate of High School or above should know.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Have you heard about the woman who had (I think they're 8 now) sextuplets? They are the only living, surviving sextuplets in the world except for one other family that just had them. This was VERY dangerous to the mother but she kept going. Why? Because she wanted to love what was going to come out of her.

Your point being?

Originally posted by JM Qui-Gon Jinn
Duh! You see, those fetuses are American :rolleyes:

Yeah, I think that that was kinda the point he was trying to make...

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
For those who do not believe in souls, the conflict may also be restated as whether or not an unborn baby possesses whatever essence that separates humans from any other form of life on Earth.

Overdeveloped cognitive abilities. But they don't develop until the age of about one, so that's not where to place the line.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
By allowing abortion the US Supreme Court effectually decided that an unborn baby does not have a human life

[...]

This is something that the Supreme Court had no authority to make a decision about, yet it did just that.

No. Logical flaw. The issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. They can only decide whether to treat something as life/unlife. The question of life/unlife can only be answered scientifically, which coincidentially happens to agree with the SC. But if the SC had decided otherwise, then it wouldn't have meant that foetuses posessed human life. Therefore the SC didn't decide whether the foetus is human or not.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
It essentially decided that life does not begin for a baby until the moment it leaves the mother naturally.

No. 1) It said nothing about the beginning of human life, only about the beginning of legal protection. 2) It stated that it was up to the individual states to block abortion after the start of the third trimester, effectively granting legal protection to foetuses 3 months before they left the womb, exept in cases where they were a direct threat to the mother.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
This is equivalent to saying that an unborn baby has no soul or does not posses whatever quality that makes a living being truly human.

False. The SC only decides on legal rights. See above. And no human has a soul.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Even the most qualified fields of knowledge, such as medicine, theology or philosophy cannot determine when an unborn child becomes human or if it has a soul.

I must strongly object to the placement of a scientific field (Medicine) in league with such nonsense as Theology or Philosophy. And Medicine can quite certainly determine that no human has a soul. The mind is in the brain. Many functions have even been located.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court especially has no business deciding on such matters that are so far beyond its authority and understanding.

That's why they (hopefully) consult medical experts (and kick any theological "experts" back to wherever they came from).

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Also, the only powers the Supreme Court has are written in the Constitution. There is no clause in the Constitution that explicitly or implicitly gives it the power to decide on the matters of the beginning of human life or whether or not an unborn child has a soul. Hence, the Supreme Court not only breached its intellectual and moral authority in the decision of Roe vs. Wade but it also breached its Constitutional powers.

You cannot define "moral authority" objectively. Therefore the SC cannot have breached it. The human doesn't have a soul. Period. Therefore the SC doesn't need to decide whether it has or not.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Then what should the ruling have been? The only ruling the Supreme Court could have passed without breaching its Constitutional powers is that the willful or negligent destruction of an unborn baby is a criminal act. Not because destroying an unborn baby is taking a human life. As stated before, no one can determine that. However, the moment the Supreme Court fails to protect an unborn child at any stage in development is the moment it makes the decision about the beginning of human life and whether or not an unborn child has a soul. The Supreme Court has no authority to decide such things.

By saying that the foetus must be protected at all cost, the SC would take a stand. And again: There is no such thing as "soul".

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Although it would appear that this decision would completely inhibit a woman’s ability to have an abortion; that is not necessarily the case. Legally speaking, it would still be possible for a woman to terminate her pregnancy provided that every step necessary was taken to ensure the survival of the unborn child. This is a truly revolutionary idea; however, before I continue, let me address another issue first.

Show me something that indicates that such treatments are on the marked.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Some may think that this would defeat the purpose of having an abortion;

[...]

They talk about how they shouldn’t have to have the child if they don’t want to.

And so what? The foetus is not a human by any standard.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
I believe a woman has a right to her own body and to her privacy.

[...]

An unborn child is a separate entity altogether.

No. It is part of the mother's blood circulation, for one thing.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Now, let me get back to my revolutionary idea.

[...]

The lives of unborn babies would be protected and the rights of women would be upheld as well. In addition, a woman who wants to have a child but cannot continue the pregnancy for health reasons might actually be able to keep her child.

What revolutionary idea? And since it isn't possible now, put it back into the drawer until it is.

Oh, and to this whole SC-is-in-no-position-to-do-this-according-to-Constitution:

1) Isn't the SC supposed to be the guys and gals who interpret the Constitution?

2) This thread is about whether it should be legal/ is morally justifiable, not what the law actually says on the subject.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Correction. Every kid is wanted somewhere. Adoption is always an option rather than abortion.

And for every couple that wants to adopt there are three third-world kids ready. At least. Because some sonofagoat *coughthePopecough* banned condoms.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Also, I did not ever argue that a woman should be forced to carry a baby to term. In addition, I fail to see how it can be concluded that what I have proposed would necessarily result in any more physical harm to the mother than what a regular abortion would.

And I can hardly imagine anything less harmfull than a hormonal cure, that causes the body to reject the foetus. How was it again that your magical treatment worked?

Originally posted by daring dueler
but it has a heart beat and can react to is=ts envirnment and even think

The foetus fulfills the braindead criteria until the start of the third trimester, according to GonkH8ter. And it doesn't have lungfunctions until shortly before birth. Surely something that won't breathe for another six months can't be living?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Now that you look at it, even though your mom could have been in danger because of you, would you have wanted her to have an abortion? Then you wouldn't be in this world.

Populistic argument. Discard at will.

Originally posted by Darklighter
If abortion was illegal, and the mother didn't want the baby, do you think the baby would live a happy life after it was born?

Or, more to the point: Do you really think that it would be allowed to survive? In countries where abortion is outlawed you see a sharp rise in the number of infanticides.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
Whoever said that they're not thinking by the time most abortions happened - you're wrong. The brain is functioning by six weeks I think is the right time.

[...]

Because ants cannot think rationally, unlike humans.


*PMs Gonk*

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
What do you define as "human" brainwaves? Where is the level where they're not human anymore? Because some Alzheimers' patients have lower brainwave function that those first trimester babies. But we don't kill them for research.

GonkH8ter has something to say to that, I think. Besides, abortion isn't for research.

Whatcha mean?

Humans see "life" getting killed all around them. Are they to stop the plants from being consumed? But that would kill the herbivores, ect. Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

Woops! A double Redwing, I think... Sovvy.

Okay. I just have to say that I object to the way things are portrayed on this site:

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/partbirthabort.html)

Blend facts with mambo-jambo and opinions... that pisses me off.

For christ sakes; people should be RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE when making decisions.

What kind of crap is this?! -->

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/graphics/pbabort5.gif)

http://www.jeremiahproject.com/graphics/pbabort4.gif)

I could give a similar detailed description about normal childbirth:

A woman is bleeding and sweating in terrible agony and her vagina is torn apart by the ruthless infant trying to get out. The doctor takes a long pointy mean-looking evil metallic object and shoves it right through the silky skin of the innocent mother in horrible pain injecting strange mind-affecting fluids inside her veins - now would you really want children to be born would you, huh!? How could you do that to this poor woman? Can you picture her looking at you with her beautiful bright blue eyes just as she is about to DIE in PAIN?

Vote Ban Childbirth NOW! Remember; she SCREAMING in AGONY in a pile of gooey entrails and blood and sticky stuff and it's all because of the CRUEL BABY!!

ARG! :mad:


EDIT: I assume the site was about abortions that are done very late during the pregnancy. I have strong objections about that as has our laws. But my point still stands; the technical details have no relevance whatsoever, and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame. :mad:

Originally posted by Luc Solar
and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame.

LOL! All too true.

When they start to make demagogic preachings like this, they know their case is not backed up by fact.

If you can't convince the opponent with rational arguments and facts, you know your case is weak.

Well said.

Well it might surprise everyone here to know that I have had 2 abortions. :eek: Yes, shock horror.

My dad is a very strict scottish man, he beat us with a bamboo stick up to the age of 12. When I was a teenager (I'm 31 now), me and my sister were told in no uncertain terms that if we ever got pregnant before marraige, we would be out on the street and disowned.

When I was 17 I met a boy and we both fell in love instantly. One day passion got the better of us and unfortunately the condom split. I can't even begin to discribe the horror. I was young, he was young with no viable income, I would be homeless and disowned. Basically, it would completely ruin my life to have a baby at that age. Not only that but I didn't have the first clue how to look after a baby. I cried non-stop for over a week torturing myself with the dilema of what to do. I certainly didn't want an abortion but I just could'nt see any other choice. The child would live in poverty. I finally came to the hardest decision of my life and had an abortion. My parents knew nothing.

6 years later I was still with the same boy and on new years eve we had sex. When he removed himself, the condom stayed in me. That night he decided to confess to me that he had slept with my best friend. I had stayed faithful to him so you can imagine my depression that followed. A couple of weeks later I found out I was pregnant. Now this time it was different, I could support the child should I choose to have it but it would have no father. I met up with some friends a few days later and one of my friends that I had known for over a year confessed his love for me (my husband). We started to date and I told him I was pregnant by my ex-boyfriend. He said something astounding to me even now. He said he would stand by me whether I chose to have the baby or not. Now this bought a different light on the matter, I was falling in love. Would I want this man to look after someone elses child? No. This will sound unbelievable to most I know, but I knew this man was the one I would marry. There was only one choice, abortion. I told my parents the whole story and my mum said something I will never forget...'I wouldn't have his child'. This put the icing on the cake, she was right. Why should I bring my ex-boyfriends child into the world.

Now, I don't care whether any of you think what I did was wrong or not, I'm just telling my story. Making the decisions to have those abortions was the hardest decisions I have ever had to make but I don't regret those decisions one bit, no matter how guilty I still feel to this day. I read all the literature I could read at the time and I convinced myself that those babies were not alive and I will still convince myself that they were not alive because if I don't, I will surely go mad.

Try not to judge people when you cannot possibly imagine what it is like to be in that situation. At the end of the day, there are many different reasons why a woman has an abortion and it certainly isn't right to just say...'it's wrong'.

Touching. Well, I, and GonkH8er, and others, can tell you with complete certainty that the baby is:

Alive

and

Braindead.

If it was the victim of a traffic accident, then we would have no compunction about ripping it for organ transplants (which is why the opposition to stem cell research is just plain silly, but that's just going off a tangent).

Overdeveloped cognitive abilities. But they don't develop until the age of about one, so that's not where to place the line.

That is what you decided separates humans from any form of life on earth. Hence, it is not the flaw in my argument to place the "line" where I have.

No. Logical flaw. The issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. They can only decide whether to treat something as life/unlife. The question of life/unlife can only be answered scientifically, which coincidentially happens to agree with the SC. But if the SC had decided otherwise, then it wouldn't have meant that foetuses posessed human life. Therefore the SC didn't decide whether the foetus is human or not.

You are correct in saying that the issue of life/unlife is not for any court to decide. But the court has effectually decided when human life begins. They may not have expressed it but it is still indicated by their decision. The issue of when human life begins cannot be answered scientifically. Science can only show when life begins, not humanity. Science does not support the Supreme Court's decision.

No. 1) It said nothing about the beginning of human life, only about the beginning of legal protection. 2) It stated that it was up to the individual states to block abortion after the start of the third trimester, effectively granting legal protection to foetuses 3 months before they left the womb, exept in cases where they were a direct threat to the mother.

Again the court may not have expressly stated when human life begins, but through their decision they have. And the Supreme Court did not give the states the obligation to block abortions after the third trimester, but the choice. Therefore, the Supreme Court did not grant legal protection to unborn children in the last trimester, because legal protection would mean that there wouldn't be any choice.

False. The SC only decides on legal rights. See above. And no human has a soul.

It is your belief that no human has a soul. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul or deny it.

I must strongly object to the placement of a scientific field (Medicine) in league with such nonsense as Theology or Philosophy. And Medicine can quite certainly determine that no human has a soul. The mind is in the brain. Many functions have even been located.

One of the basic principals of philosophy is that scientific evidence is one of the best reasons as to why we should believe something is true. In fact, understanding philosophy is key to understanding why we should generally reject beliefs that lack scientific evidence and endorse those that are supported by science and other credible resources. Logic falls under Philosophy and it teaches what kinds of arguments are valid and what arguments violate the laws of logic and are fallacious. Theology as a whole is responsible for providing moral outlines that governments use to pass laws that are fair and moral. There is nothing that is nonsense about theology or philosophy. Finally, the assertion that medicine can determine no human has a soul is laughable. Science deals only with perceivable phenomena.

You cannot define "moral authority" objectively. Therefore the SC cannot have breached it. The human doesn't have a soul. Period. Therefore the SC doesn't need to decide whether it has or not.

You don't have to define moral authority objectively to see the Supreme Court has breached it. The Supreme Court has no place making a moral decision whatsoever. Their function is to enforce the laws and the Constitution. Again, it is you assertion that humans do not have souls.

By saying that the foetus must be protected at all cost, the SC would take a stand. And again: There is no such thing as "soul".

You contradict your own argument here. You have stated that the Supreme Court only decides whether or not to treat something as life/unlife. This is inconsistent with the assertion you make here that the Supreme Court would be taking a stand. The Supreme Court's obligation is to see to it that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights. In protecting an unborn child the Supreme Court ensures that this is done, considering that it can't be determined if an unborn child really has a human life. By not protecting an unborn child they fail to ensure that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

If the Supreme Court were obligated to ensure that non people were denied Constitutional rights, then you would have a valid point in saying the Supreme Court was taking a stand by protecting unborn children. But this is not so. By protecting unborn children, the Supreme Court would be deciding to treat an unborn child as though it were alive in a legal sense. This is in agreement with your original point.


And so what? The foetus is not a human by any standard.

An unborn child possess all the genetic material that defines humanity. Is there a better scientific standard that can be found than this?

What revolutionary idea? And since it isn't possible now, put it back into the drawer until it is.

The idea that abortion does not necessarily have to entail the destruction of a fetus in a logical or perhaps a medical sense. If it stays in the draw, it will never become possible. So as for your suggestion, no.

1) Isn't the SC supposed to be the guys and gals who interpret the Constitution?

Yep, and they must also abide by it.

2) This thread is about whether it should be legal/ is morally justifiable, not what the law actually says on the subject.

And this is why...?

And I can hardly imagine anything less harmfull than a hormonal cure, that causes the body to reject the foetus. How was it again that your magical treatment worked?

A quotation from Justice Blackmun's opinion in the decision of Roe vs Wade reads, "Appellants and various amici refer to medical data indicating that abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."

That was in the 1970's. So what are you basing your opinion on?

Oh and its not my treatment. I just considered the idea. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for making up the procedure.

today in theology class we watched an abortion-it was apoling if the person saw it they would never do it. we had 1 kid faint!. they literally stuck in a tool and pulled the baby apart, i saw the bady get ripped apart, the head ....squashed. i felt sick.

Originally posted by daring dueler
today in theology class we watched an abortion-it was apoling if the person saw it they would never do it. we had 1 kid faint!. they literally stuck in a tool and pulled the baby apart, i saw the bady get ripped apart, the head ....squashed. i felt sick.

Yep I believe thats what happens which makes it so wrong.

yeah its awful. they hide behind saying its not life yet or its only potential life but its always a life even in there. we saw the baby moving , reacting. the baby feels pain. and its illegal to "abort" or i say kill a baby over 7 months yet its ok if its less than 6 and babies have been born at 5 months. i always new it was bad and awful and how they did it, but the movie really changed me. and when they are donr the put the remains in a bucket. they showd them rip him out peice by peace and put him down in a bucket of blood i could see feet, hands, what was left of a ravaged head. i felt sick and i fell bad for the kid who passed out. our teacher said dont look if you cant but its undertnadable why he fainted.

:D

A wise man once said:

Originally posted by Luc Solar
For christ sakes; people should be RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE when making decisions.

...

I could give a similar detailed description about normal childbirth:

A woman is bleeding and sweating in terrible agony and her vagina is torn apart by the ruthless infant trying to get out. The doctor takes a long pointy mean-looking evil metallic object and shoves it right through the silky skin of the innocent mother in horrible pain injecting strange mind-affecting fluids inside her veins - now would you really want children to be born would you, huh!? How could you do that to this poor woman? Can you picture her looking at you with her beautiful bright blue eyes just as she is about to DIE in PAIN?

Vote Ban Childbirth NOW! Remember; she SCREAMING in AGONY in a pile of gooey entrails and blood and sticky stuff and it's all because of the CRUEL BABY!!

...But my point still stands; the technical details have no relevance whatsoever, and if someone has to resort to them then they obviously are desperate and have a weak case. How lame. :mad:

yeah the mother is too in pain its horrible she could die too. sounds fun eh. i couldnt live with myself if i did that although im not a women.

Wow, that's all I can say to anyone who supports abortion. I think that any killing of life is wrong, plain and simple. Are bounty hunters/ hired assassins legal? Why then are things like killing innocent, unborn babies, and assisted suicide legal? Why am I insane and doing something illegal if I kill for fun (serial killers), but a normal, though slightly controvertial person if I kill unborn children for money? BTW, has anyone ever read about Partial birth Abortions? DISGUSTING is what they are, and I won't go into it. THere is a heartbeat at three weeks, does that imply life? Or would people rather say no, and continue to act like nothing is wrong with abortion?

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
That is what you decided separates humans from any form of life on earth. Hence, it is not the flaw in my argument to place the "line" where I have.

No, the flaw in your argument is that you assume that there is such a thing as 'soul'.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
It is your belief that no human has a soul. There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of a soul or deny it.

You are abusing science to the point of being a fraud. There is no observational evidence that it does exist, therefore it is safe to assume that it does not. That's what science says.

And I must insist that you desist relating the word "belief" to my person. I have no beliefs. I am a free thinker, not oppressed by the dogma implied by faith. I will not bow to faith. Not your, not anybody else's. I bow only to facts. And the facts do not say that humans have a soul. Therefore there is no reason whatsoever for me to work on the assumption that they do.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Logic falls under Philosophy and it teaches what kinds of arguments are valid and what arguments violate the laws of logic and are fallacious.

Logic is an independent dicipline that you can practice without the thought-control/oppression of philosophical bullsnot. In fact logic is also a mathematical dicipline, and Math hardly falls under philosophy.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Theology as a whole is responsible for providing moral outlines that governments use to pass laws that are fair and moral.

Theology is the study of religion, from an 'inside' perspective (litterally: Diety-knowledge). Since religion is useless bullsnot, so is theology.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Finally, the assertion that medicine can determine no human has a soul is laughable. Science deals only with perceivable phenomena.

Yes, science deals with what can be percieved. When it cannot be percieved, then it's not there. Period. Your flawed logic is tantamount to saying that because a pig flying under its own power has never been observed, science cannot say that pigs can't fly under their own power.

When a hypothesis is being tested in order to become a theory it is evaluated chiefly based on observational evidence. If there is no such, then the hypothesis is rejected.

So, take the hypothesis that there is such a thing as 'soul'. We will now test it. Evidence for it: None. Therefore it is a false hypothesis. Discard it. Saying that there has to be evidence against it is asking for proof of the negative, which is logically impossible. Therefore humans have no souls.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
You don't have to define moral authority objectively to see the Supreme Court has breached it.

No. That's the whole trick. You have to define moral authority subjectively in order to see that SC has breached it, because it cannot be defined objectively. But since your definition is a subjective one, any other holds equal value. Therefore you cannot use it to back your arguments.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court has no place making a moral decision whatsoever.

Correct. However they did not. They said that there is no evidence that the foetus is human, and therefore should not be treated as one.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
You contradict your own argument here. You have stated that the Supreme Court only decides whether or not to treat something as life/unlife. This is inconsistent with the assertion you make here that the Supreme Court would be taking a stand.

Gah, you're right. What I was trying to point out was the logical flaw in your argument. By your logic the decision would be a stand on life/unlife, regardless of what the outcome was. What I was trying to say is that you cannot suddenly start discriminating between the decision that you agree with and the one you do not. Sorry for not expressing myself clearly enough.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The Supreme Court's obligation is to see to it that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

Keyword: People.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
In protecting an unborn child the Supreme Court ensures that this is done, considering that it can't be determined if an unborn child really has a human life. By not protecting an unborn child they fail to ensure that all people are guaranteed their Constitutional rights.

Benefit of the doubt, you suggest, yes? The logical flaw in your argument is that there is very strong evidence against the foetus being a human being. So in effect there is no doubt.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
If the Supreme Court were obligated to ensure that non people were denied Constitutional rights, then you would have a valid point in saying the Supreme Court was taking a stand by protecting unborn children.

Bullsnot. If the Constitution was to outline all of the creatures that didn't benefit from Constitutional Rights, then it would have taken a thousand times a thousand years to pen (imagine the text: "...Anthrax is also not protected by the rights outlined within this document, Cows are also not protected by the rights outlined within this document...).

The law is for humans, save where it specifically states otherwise. The foetus is not human, and the laws that you refer to do not specifically mention foetuses. Therefore the foetus does not benefit from the law.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
An unborn child possess all the genetic material that defines humanity. Is there a better scientific standard that can be found than this?

Brainwaves. The foetus fulfills the braindead criteria until the start of the third trimester. If it was a grown adult we would be ripping it of organs, not sitting down having a comitee about it.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
The idea that abortion does not necessarily have to entail the destruction of a fetus in a logical or perhaps a medical sense. If it stays in the draw, it will never become possible. So as for your suggestion, no.

Research should always be conducted. What I meant was that you cannot incorporate an undeveloped method into your laws/world veiw.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Mortality rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal, appear to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth."

That was in the 1970's. So what are you basing your opinion on?

What I said: Hormonal cures. You can make the body reject the foetus as foreign tissue. Piece of cake. That's how P-pills work.

Originally posted by UgonDieFoo
Oh and its not my treatment. I just considered the idea. That doesn't mean I'm responsible for making up the procedure.

Point taken. See above.

To evaluate both of your posts:

1) You need to learn the difference between positive and negative evidence.

2) You need to remove your faith from this debate if you want anybody to take you seriously.

3) You need to read up on what Philosopy and Theology are. Both are useless, and cannot be used to back up arguments.

The rest of the thread:

The movie showed abortion performed in the third trimester. This is only done when the life of the mother is on the line, or the foetus is irrepairably damaged. Showing such a movie at school without telling the whole story is biased and immoral at best and in direct violation of standing law at worst.

And the silly "heartbeat makes the critter human" crap: Ditch it!

Surely something is not human until it breathes, right? Have you ever seen a living human being that didn't breathe.

Now what is wrong with the above? That I am drawing an arbitrary line that I only place there because that placement supports my view.

Heartbeat can be created in a petri dish or mechanically induced in a dead body, and it would still be a perfectly normal heartbeat. So you cannot use heartbeat to determine human life.

The foetus is braindead. In the other end of the system it would be thrown out with the trash after it had been ripped of all useful parts. So go fight for braindead people's rights to continue living instead... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar
You are abusing science to the point of being a fraud. There is no observational evidence that it does exist, therefore it is safe to assume that it does not. That's what science says.

Lol yet this is what a theory of the Big Bang states that there is "dark matter" in the universe that has never been seen or even found, so therefore it must be wrong.

Careful, Shadow... hundreds of years ago, there was no tangible evidence that Pluto or Neptune existed... that certainly didnt mean they werent there.

There are many things science hasnt discovered yet. That doesnt mean that they're not there. On things that are conceivable yet undiscovered, I stand neutral.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Lol yet this is what a theory of the Big Bang states that there is "dark matter" in the universe that has never been seen or even found, so therefore it must be wrong.

I don't know the Big Bang theory very well, but there is observational evidence that suggests the existence of Dark Matter (movement of stellar bodies that could not be explained with conventional Newtonian dynamics, ect). So it can be 'seen' by our measurement instruments.

Careful, Shadow... hundreds of years ago, there was no tangible evidence that Pluto or Neptune existed... that certainly didnt mean they werent there.

No, but it meant that, at that time, you could safely work from the knowledge that they weren't there. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't go looking for them, but it certainly does mean that you shouldn't make a law that says: "We must colonize Pluto!", which is the equivalent of what you are doing if you protect someone's 'soul' in the law.