Rape being re-defined by Senator Akin

The fallacy is in presenting a scenario wherein you have to choose between A and B, and it's a damned you do, damned if you don't scenario. Such a scenario makes it a one-way debating point. Specifically, it would fall under the False Dilemma category.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma




You can't be serious, can you? The five year old is breathing, he has a respiratory system that's working. He's a conscious, living being, he's just temporarily unconscious in your scenario. I mean, uh, duh?





No matter how severe the injury, it's quite possible to wake someone from an unconscious, to conscious state(Unless of course, it's at the severe point of comatose.) If it weren't possible, what then is the purpose of our alarm clocks? Or how do people wake others when they're sleeping in the first place(as you clearly imply that we can do.)

Now mind you, in a manner of life and death a person in that hypothetical scenario wouldn't have the "time" to give it a concentrated effort, but there's no harm in trying for a minute or two. In the event that, of course, we have to save the lives that we can, it is not because we held one over the other. It's precisely because both are weighed equally, that it's difficult to make that decision.

There's the ideal, and sometimes there's reality. I wouldn't want to leave either to die, no matter how much you want me to imply it's acceptable.





Will you hold the same standards to yourself? Hypocrite.







Your unprecedented stupidity(no offense) continues to amaze me. Where in my statement do you see the word "perfect"? In the very paragraph, if you actually bothered to read it, I acknowledged the difficulties it would take for such a family to raise the child. I also stated that, regardless, there's a high chance that even a decade from now, said economic factors won't change and that it'll still be difficult. Because of that, morally, we should hold that all lives are equal and they have the same chance to develop.

Oh and get this: Because you said that I believed that they would be 'perfectly capable' of raising a child, you made an assumption. The pot calls the kettle black.








As much as I'd like to demonstrate it, I have the feeling you're not going to understand it, so here it goes: They 'have' the right to say no, by using proper methods of birth control, by not engaging in a sexual relationship if they should so choose. What they do not have the right to do, in non-medical cases is capital murder(Abortion.)

The ironic thing about this "choice"(Liberals often live in fantasy world and not reality), is that in some cases, this liberating act of murder doesn't just take the life of the child. It also takes the life of the murderer(the 'mother' in this case)

http://afterabortion.org/2011/abortion-risks-a-list-of-major-psychological-complications-related-to-abortion/

Read, comprehend, try to make sense of it. As difficult as it might be for you.






I thought we weren't going to make presumptions? What I mean, is that a woman's ability to grant life is a gift bestowed upon a woman. The pain, the joy and the excitement with a significant other. There's no "choice" involved in Abortion, there's only tragedy, only blood spilled. In a productive economy, where women can get high-paying jobs and where we can hold to the morality of our male gender, we can have productive, healthy families which will build something mysterious and unknown to you called a society.

Abortion is an abomination of hell, a poor answer to the problem called poverty.

Reproductive rights, to me, means the ability for a woman to have strong economic and moral security, to have a healthy family to support her financially and emotionally. Now THAT will go further than murdering babies just because we can.






Valid point #1: You're an idiot. You just equated treatment to kill a diseased cell, to killing a developing human being. Enough said, you're a moron. Still not convinced? You said they don't have the right to live AFTER developing sensory nerves(In other words, feelings), IE:Beyond the 23-week threshold. So unbeknowest to you, you made your position that much worse -_-

I said it earlier, I'll repeat here since with your intelligence, it might just pass by you the first time: Reproductive rights, means the rights to a safe and fertile environment for a prospective mother to have a child. In the ideal world, we make it so that there are few of those endangered ghettos and parents as possible. When you force a "choice" upon a woman, putting her parental responsibilities in the negative, OR, the idea of parting ways with the life she and her lover worked hard to conceive. You're taking away her reproductive rights, you've defiled the woman in the worst ways.

If you've anything of decency, morality and SOME fiber of intelligence, you should realize why you're actually anti-reproductive rights.

Surprise surprise, you don't know what you're talking about. A false dilemma is when there is in fact more than 2 decisions of a given scenario and I only present you with two. But the scenario is defined as only having two decisions, so it's a true dilemma. So you fail on this point.



You might wanna define what the fuck you think 'conscious' means. Because there's a difference between 'conscious' and 'alive'. I find the cognitive dissonance you express breathtaking, "He's conscious, he's just unconscious in your scenario." So he's both? You do understand that violates the Law of Identity right?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity




I didn't say you thought it was acceptable, but you proved my point. You'd save the 5 year old first, THEN the 5 jars. Also, shaking someone isn't generally how you wake them up after an injury that causes unconsciousness. You tend to need some sort of medical help to do so, and I don't recall sending you in there with smelling salts or anything of the like.

Alarm clocks awaken a person who is simply in voluntary sleep. Unconsciousness has many different levels, and when one is knocked out via injury or something it's seperate from when they simply go to sleep. It's on a different level. Alarm clocks don't wake up people who have an injury, otherwise yelling would work, and guess what? It doesn't. That's in part why firemen need to learn how to carry people.




It'd be great if you could demonstrate me doing so, instead of just...calling me a name. ;)



No, I just quoted you saying, "Can they take care of the child? Probable."

Meaning you felt they'd be fine in taking care of the child. This isn't an assumption, it's just me quoting you. ;)

Also, I'd like to point out a nice little non sequitur here, "I also stated that, regardless, there's a high chance that even a decade from now, said economic factors won't change and that it'll still be difficult. Because of that, morally, we should hold that all lives are equal and they have the same chance to develop."

Premise 1. Economic factors won't change and raising a child would be difficult
Conclusion: All lives are morally held equal.

That doesn't logically follow son. You're just spouting nonsense. :D




And when those fail, you say their right to say 'no' is taken away because...I don't even know why. Yeah, I know. You take away rights completely arbitrarily, we know this already.



Well, since all abortions are technically 'medical' then your use of the term 'non-medical' brings fort hthe image of a back alley abortion. Which of course you advocate. As that's the inevitable consequence of taking rights away from women to choose...since they're gonna do it...one way or another.



Like that means anything coming from you XD



Nice, a non peer reviewed paper saying that abortion causes psychological effects. Here's another couple papers talking about how difficult it is raising children and how horrible the adoption process is. :D

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/46920 - some of the the horrors of adoption

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/06/14/cost-to-raise-a-child-around-300000-not-including-college/ - cost of raising a child.

I dunno about you, but I certainly don't make that kind of cash.

I know you wish this were as simple as, "Abortion bad. Liberals dumb." But in reality, nothing is so black and white.

As far as YOUR source goes, the onus is on the woman to take all of those into consideration when contemplating her abortion. But none of those is enough to outlaw it. ;)




I didn't, that's why I asked. :)



By who?



None of which is a baby required for, so irrelevant.



No sources on that? No statistics saying that 100% of women who have gone through abortion regretted their decision for the rest of their lives or anything? Well then. I'm going to disregard this one if you don't mind.



And we also have the choice to not have a family at all if we don't want. Such is the wonder of being a human and having these things called 'rights'.

[qute]Abortion is an abomination of hell, a poor answer to the problem called poverty.[/quote]

Well that's your opinion.



Here's the thing. You can call it 'murdering babies' all you want, far as I'm concerned if abortion is murder, so is chemotherapy. And I know you think that's absurd, we'll be getting to that in a moment. ;)



Well that's your opinion, yet again. Not really a valid point...just you declaring you don't like my stance. Good for you, why should anyone give a shit?

To me, someone only has the right to life if they're experiencing life. Only if an active course of events is going on and they show some sort of understanding of being alive. And this isn't something I'm making up either, it's a popular point made in professional philosophy called "Being biographically alive" which is why we don't assign cancer cells and other things as 'persons'.



Right, i means they have no choice in the matter of having the baby(which takes way rights to their bodies for some arbitrary reason) s that they MUST have the baby but hey, we'll make it comfortable for you! See, I'm totally for allowing mothers who WANT to have their babies all the comfort they need...so how am I against reproductive rights again? Oh right, because I give them MORE rights than you. How silly of me.



I love how you keep talking about "in the ideal world" when earlier you chastized "liberals" for not living in the real world. And I'm the hypocrite? The irony is lulzy.



Not at all! I'm giving her the right to make ALL those decisions, deciding if parental responsibilities even ARE a negative is one right I give them, the right to stay with their partner after abortion is another right I give them...yup, not taking a single thing away from them. :)

But really, I do have to applaud the amount of idiocy it takes to say something as stupid as "forcing" a "choice" and making it seem like giving someone rights takes away rights. The mental gymnastics here are quite a sight to behold. By the way, for your education's sake, I'll let you in on a little something stupid you're doing with the words 'reproductive rights'. It's called Obfuscation. You're making the term "reproductive rights" confusing and incoherent by defining it the exact opposite way I define it and using it against me. That's what's known as 'dishonest' in the academic circles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation



Well, I don't, and I'm an intelligent person, and I study ethics as my major, so your evaluation is mistaken. :)

Still waiting for a single valid point...*yawn*

Incorrect, you gave me the decision to either save the five year old, or to save the jars. And either way, you would have either proven your "point" of saying I valued a certain life over the other.(IE:You would have crucified me if I chose the jars over the boy). Try to keep up, please.





Actually, the words 'conscious' and 'alive' are synonymous and I'm using conscious in the correct manner. Your level of vocabulary just isn't up to par with mine, which again isn't surprising. When a person falls temporarily unconscious, his brain is in a suspended comatose state, however, the human being is still alive. Blood is still circulating through the body, and oxygen still passes through the body(In worse case scenarios, breathing machines and the such aid the body, but it doesn't entirely take over said process.)







You make a subjective claim "It doesn't work", without proving it so. Though it is logical that in most cases, the injured-unconscious person wouldn't wake up. But the probability exists and you can give the brief chance to try it. Most people consciously, however wouldn't take it to chance. They'd just grab the child and GTFO out of there.





Weren't you reading below? You clearly demonstrated your own hypocrisy(though you don't believe it so, doesn't make it not so.)





You're the one whose spouting nonsense. The key word to highlight is "probable", this means it's likely, but with a disclaimer and the disclaimer followed, acknowledging the difficulties of economics but that human life is universal in it's equality. I didn't feel that they were "fine" or I passed over the issues as nonsensical, but that even with the difficulties, a fetus that is conceived through consenting intercourse has the right to life.

I'm not surprised it doesn't follow logically for you, you're DEVOID of logic. If Economic Factors won't change whether one had a baby in one's 'adult youth' or in the prime of an adult's life(Mid-30's to 40's), then the logic of a 'better' life, which was already an intellectual fallacy has become even more so of a fallacy.

Get it, yet? If two roads intersect, and they lead to the same destination it doesn't matter which road you take. If the two roads intersect in this case, then the logic of a 'better life', is no longer justification for abortion.







Having an abortion does not equal the right to say no, having a child is a part of the 'risk'(an ugly term to use in a relationship, if you're really committed, the child should be looked at as a part of your future.). You see Biglundi, I might be old-fashioned but I'm of the belief that Murder is Murder, regardless of what kind of spin you'd like to put on it.

Outside of non-medical related issues(rape, etc, the likes), what's the other probable reasons for abortion? The right to say no? Poverty?(That's what it all comes down to.)

Here's a fine idea: Instead of advocating for a wide-ranging murder policy like we're communist China, we can actually focus on pro-economic policies, so that more Americans(men and women) can get jobs, have their morale boosted and thereby both mother and child can grow and live prosperously together.

What a concept, it was the way we used to do things. It's no surprise that since we dropped that, we declined. No thanks to Karl Marx's cult, it caused massive death in Russia, it's causing the same death here. Leftism is a disease upon this country's surface, a disease that should have never crept on this country as the Founders universally rejected it.

We fought a war to prevent it from coming here, but Mccarthy ultimately turned out to be right.




No, not all abortions are equal. Your "reproductive choice" is murder, there are even pro-choicers who agree with that sentiment. You also make the false argument that there'll be "back alley abortions", and that women will inevitably try to cut open their stomachs just to get that 'thing' out of them.

You also made the false attack, out of nowhere, with no proof whatsoever that I would "advocate" for back alley abortions. Showing your Liberal stupidity with pride, now?

Abortions have two primary causes: Medical(Rape, incest, etc. OR Danger to the womb/mother's life) or economic.

Eliminate the economic concerns, and you've cut abortion by 3/4ths. Imagine the advances in science, that can make those dangerous pregnancies, much safer in the future? An even further decrease in abortion.

The partial-ban of abortion would be the final straw on the camel's back of this abomination. If you don't like America's future without abortion, my suggestion is to go to China, Venezuela or some other third world country that's more fitting.

But since I hold America to first world standards, I expect 10,000 abortions...a YEAR. Period. This would be a dramatic decrease from the approximately 1.2 million slain unborns a year in what used to be called 'America'.







The cost argument as it relates to raising a child, is a false argument since the cost is not initial, but rather it's yearly. And as I said, that's what a working economy is for, which ironically enough requires human beings. So there's something to be said about the reproductive system, and our system of loving other beings.

Between suicide, heavy depression, or potentially disease(Breast Cancer), those are more than enough reasons. Adding into that, the death of the fetus? Let's compare it to a cigarette, it blows cigarette's out of the water in terms of negative risk, little productivity. Abortion is literally the killer of women. It's thereby the
killer of the human race.

If there's a devil who despises the human race(I'm not implying there is, take note of the word 'if' here), then he devised the ultimate weapon: Abortion.






By the decree of our own design. We've been given the ability to merge with a significant other, share in the experiences through pregnancy, marriage, etc. These developments are a crucial, in fact the lynchpin to the entire society.

You might think that the "right to choose" is humanizing the feminine, but you're mistaken. You're actually making her more of an object, by objectifying the fetus as a 'thing', she can easily dispose of if she chooses, instead of a life she harbors out of love. Human life is valuable, the liberal who doesn't recognize
this value of course, won't be able to understand this. Can you?








A baby is not required for a deep relationship, obviously. But when a couple has a child, that child improves their relationship ten-fold. The experience of being there for your love through the trial and errors of the pregnancy.

So far from irrelevant, a pregnancy is one of the hugest and biggest parts of a deepening, serious relationship. It's a part of our human development. I know it's hard for you, but please try to wrap your head around that fact.





No, I don't mind. You've disregarded everything I've said. Frankly, I should disregard you as well. But here I am, still trying to beat logic into you. For one thing, since Abortion is sadly supported on a political spectrum, obviously 100% is an impossible demand to make upon me. However, I do actually intend on answering this question as outlined, just to show you the difference in our intellectual power.

In that article I gave you, around 34% of women who had an abortion, regretted it. And around 15% at least suffered PTSD and/or PTSD-related symptoms. Add that to the actual suicide rate, and we're easily talking 70% of Abortion-caused victims.





.

Don't make me repeat myself: Yes, you have the right to decide not to have a family, have children. No, you don't have the right to capital murder. Understand the difference? Non-medical Abortion is Capital Murder.







No, that's a fact. It's linked to a disease, kills a fetus and even kills the aborter. So far, I've yet to see a single productive thing abortion brings, other than the fallacy of the choice of Demi-Godhood.






At this point, I'm laughing Light Yagami-style. Your stupidity never ceases to amaze me. When a sperm cell is attached to the womb and starts to formulate(into a Zygote), it is already a developing being. Your comparing a cell of force and life, to a diseased cell that deteriorates, breaks down the living body....

I shouldn't HAVE to tell you how retarded that sounds, but you should be disgraced that I'm typing this. Liberals call themselves intellectuals, I also call myself an intellectual. So why are you making such a fool of yourself? You should have more pride than to bring such a low level argument before me.

You're facing a high level college student who ranked on the Dean's List. So put more effort into it.




And that, is intellectual arrogance. That is to say, since we can comprehend life, that we understand it, therefore we're alive. It's something out of an academic setting that has no place in real time. However, the animal kingdom exists to disprove your theory. The animal kingdom has no cognition beyond the sense of life and death, it often reacts instinctively in preservation for it's own life.

The animal does not take the initiative and if it does, it's based on instincts, not a logical observation of the facts. So, is it not conscious? You'd argue it's not a person, and obviously it's not. But it is a biological being, you're not THAT stupid are you? You can concur that an animal is a biological being, right?

Assuming you're not brain dead, you'll make that concurrence. Now, here's where you'll learn something: That zygote, is a biological being. It may not yet be conscious, aware of it's surroundings. But it is a biological being, in fact it's wholly superior to the animal.

Whereas the Animal Kingdom will never achieve even the slightest bit of cognition, within the womb alone, when the fetus has developed to a state of consciousness, it is already aware that it is in the womb and it moves about. At the very beginning stages of human life, the human has already acquired cognition.

And that's not all, our human body is made of those same cells. These cells actually have memory stored in them, and that's why we can maintain our appearance or even improve upon our appearance. Do you get it? Even at it's very beginning, man is wholly superior to all other life forms. That zygote is our equal, superior to all other beings. The symbolic proof, is that the zygote/fetus is one with the human mother, who you've falsely deemed to be superior in demi-godhood.






This all boils down to the standards we hold for society and our morality. Whereas I see all life as equal, you do not see all life as equal. Therefore, we aren't likely to ever come to an agreement. However, I know my position to be held in logic, both ethical and ethereal logic. Yours, is held in political language and intellectual dishonesty.

I've said nothing against medical abortion, nor have I said anything against contraception. What I've said, is that no man or woman has the right to capital murder. If you want to talk about controversial ethical choices, people have the choice to drink or not drink, smoke or not smoke. The reason being, those actions(and even taking drugs), do little harm outside of yourself.

In the case of abortion, you're taking another life, and in some cases(a hell of alot more cases than pregnancy through rape, it should be pointed out.) it even takes the life of the aborter.

Again, can you tell me one good thing this serial killing machine of humanity is for? Besides, killing?





The ideal world, is a progression of modern day reality to a state of general acceptance. Whereas the Liberal promotes some of the most controversial, nonsensical ideas known to America: The businessmen/women who were at the helm of the financial crisis, and their organizations should be bailed out and paid in full, to the tone of trillions of US Dollars. Why? Because heaven forbid those overgrown companies collaspe, allowing the market to naturally correct itself.

And abortion, a human serial killing machine is your greatest invention, in second place comes our failed social program which is billions of dollars in the red.

Is there anything Communism/Leftism has NOT ruined, whether in America or the rest of the world?




Let's use Merriam Dictionary for the definition of "Reproductive" and "rights"
Reproductive: "of, relating to, or capable of reproduction"
Rights: "the interest that one has in a piece of property"

In short, the woman's womb is hers and hers alone. There shouldn't be an abortion clinic, there should be no claim to a woman's reproductive abilities. She has the right to bring children into this world. She also has the right not to do so.

But what she DOES not have the right to do, is take away from the rights of the fetus. Just because it is not conscious of it's rights, does not rob it of its rights. Understand that concept?

It's the old "taking candy away from a baby." Only, this is much much worse than simply taking candy from a toddler. It's murder of the defenseless, it's first degree, capital murder.







*Yawn* here as well, if you're really an intellectual then take what I said into consideration and think on the thesis for a while. I don't want to repeat this conversation later. Try to think of something new if you're going to rebut me.

Right, you're trying to classify me 'making a point' as a logical fallacy. So making a point is now a logical fallacy in your book.

By the way 'damned if you do damned if you don't' is not a fallacy of any sort, it's what's known as a Catch-22.

Also, the fact that you can't choose between the 5 jars and the child is indicative of something...you think the value of 5 jars with fertilized eggs in them is equal to that of one child...meaning, logically, you believe the value of ONE jar is less than that child. Meaning the value of life you ascribe to these beings...is unequal. So...you've still proven my point, by declining to answer on the grounds of, "They're equal."



So, the fact that you're using words in a way that is retarded means that MY vocabulary is the one that's lacking. Nope, sorry, I'm afraid that's not how that works.

Oxford Dictionary:
Conscious
adjective
1aware of and responding to one’s surroundings:
although I was in pain, I was conscious
2having knowledge of something:
we are conscious of the extent of the problem
[in combination] concerned with or worried about a particular matter:
they were growing increasingly security-conscious
3(of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional:
a conscious effort to walk properly
(of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned:
when you go to sleep it is only the conscious mind which shuts down

Plus, there's the fact that you used the word 'unconscious' to describe the child, meaning thatif conscious means alive, unconsciousness by proxxy means dead, therefore an unconscious child is a dead child. According to you.

I think its your vocabulary that needs work. Your logic too.



Well I love how you admit most people would save the child.

Anyhow, here's some evidence for you that being knocked out is not like going to sleep, and that they're different levels.

http://www.videojug.com/interview/deep-sleep-2

Essentially, when you're asleep, your brain sets things up so some parts are shut down, while other parts keep working. A forcible knock out causes your brain to not be able to make for these accounting, and as such you require more violent, or extreme means of waking up, like smelling salts. Why do you think that if someone is knocked out in boxing the cheering crowd doesn't just wake them right the hell back up?



Well it's more that you still haven't demonstrated that I have, and you seem to be desperately grasping for straws at this point. I'm just having fun debunking you point for point.



So a fetus has the right to life because...people are capable of taking care of them, even if they're financially incapable.

See, you like to project a lot and say I'm the one devoid of logic, but the fact of the matter is that you haven't presented a single coherent argument in the entirety of our back and forth. Really it's just kind of getting boring with how easy it is to just point for point read through this and debunk or rebut literally everything you say.

So if people are going to be poor, they should have the kid, because hey, they're probably poor anyway, and the child has the right to life..because of this?

You're really going to need to lay this out better. I'm sure it makes sense in your jumbled up little mind but I prefer to use more nice and neat organized logic than whatever you're doing.

Please lay out your premises in order, followed by the conclusion.



Lol, you literally just said, "Well if they're gonna fuck, then they brought it on themselves."

I hope you realize how absurd that sounds.



Right, because you're close minded on the idea that there is literally no substantial difference between a fertilized egg and the skin cells on your hands.

Please, tell me what the difference is. Tell me the substantial difference between the two.



Poverty I think is a main reason. Though I think another valid reason is in cases of infidelity. Or when protection is used and fails.

And to be honest, the right to say no should be enough. The woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body, whether you like it or not.



Well I mean you can call it communist china all you want but you just sound insane when you say that. You're like Glenn Beck who calls everyone who disagrees with him a nazi.

You know one good way to make sure there are more jobs available? Keeping the population down. So really abortion is good for the economy. Of course, you look at abortion as murder, I don't. You haven't demonstrated how it is, so you'll excuse me while I wave off your use of colorful language to try and prove a rhetorical point.



I have to lol. You honestly think Soviet Russia is Leftist ideology? I have news for you, Marxism has never been employed in the entirety of the world. It's always turned into a form of dictatorship. The deaths in Russia have to do with Stalin being a merciless bastard, abortion has nothing to do with it. As a matter of fact, Stalin didn't like abortion and banned it for a significant time.

In 1936, the Soviet Union made abortion illegal again, stemming largely from Joseph Stalin’s worries about population growth. The law that outlawed abortion did not only do just that, but rather contained several different decrees. The official title of the law was, “Decree on the Prohibition of Abortions, the Improvement of Material Aid to Women in Childbirth, the Establishment of State Assistance to Parents of Large Families, and the Extension of the Network of Lying-in Homes, Nursery schools and Kindergartens, the Tightening-up of Criminal Punishment for the Non-payment of Alimony, and on Certain Modifications in Divorce Legislation.” All of this was part of Stalin’s initiative to encourage population growth, as well as place a stronger emphasis on the importance of the family unit to communism.

And it was like that until he died

Randall, Amy, "’Abortion Will Deprive You of Happiness!’: Soviet Reproductive Politics in the Post-Stalin Era." Journal of Women's History 23 (2011): 13-38.



You just know someone's got the brains of a 10 year old when they end anything with, "McCarthy was right".



Well that's your opinion.



They don't have to cut the things out. Haven't you ever heard of coat hangers? Personally I'd prefer a professional handle an abortion if it's going to be done. I suppose you think it's better that they put their lives at risk if they don't want their babies.



Well because when you make something illegal, that doesn't stop it. And only someone totally ignorant of the whole of history would deny this. Prohibition anyone?



You say without any statistics to back this up.



Again you say without any statistics. Also, good luck with making the economy perfect to do that.

Might as well say,"If we all had magic wands and unicorns existed and shit gold for us to use we wouldn't have these issues!" or as much good as that statement does.



Here's hoping. Since that's the only reason anyone ever gets an abortion past the 23rd week mark. (those literally make up less than 1% of abortions, just so you know).



Lol, "If you don't like it you can GET OUT!" I'm just going to let you in on a little secret. Abortion's staying. You're not going to get rid of it, nobody is. I suggest if YOU don't like it you go somewhere else. :)



It's still called 'america'. And it will continue to be called that. Your rhetoric is boring and un persuasive.



Right. I don't make enough to support a child at 300k per 17 years. I know it's about the whole cost, it's not a false argument, it still applies when you take that into account.



Which we don't have so that's irrelevant.



Do you think the U.S has a population problem? If anything we're overpopulated. If we cut down a little bit maybe more people could get jobs.



Well that's patently absurd. Abortion is used at times to save women's lives. Such as is the case with ectopic pregnancy.

So you know...it saves lives.

Concerning the idea that a fetus' death blows a cigarette out of the water in terms of negative risk and productivity, I'd have to disagree. There's really very little risk at all in 99% of abortions. And smoking a cigarette is just as productive as not having a child.



Well, if so, then it's a shitty weapon that's not doing a good job, especially since it can and does save lives. Bit of an incompetent devil this one isn't he?



So what? The fact that we've evolved to have children sexually doesn't mean we ought to. Here's another piece of education for you. It's called David Hume's is/ought gap. The fact that something is the case, does not imply any sort of moral ought from that case. Another premise must be established first in order to bring about any sort of 'ought' statement.

For example
1. Killing someone takes away their life.
Conclusion: One ought not kill another person.

That doesn't logically follow.

1. Killing someone takes away their life
2. One values the person's life
3. One's values reflect what one ought to do.
Conclusion: One ought not kill another person.

See how logic works?



So your objection is that by giving her the choice, I'm giving her the choice, and she shouldn't have the choice, she should just love the child with no exception and be forced to have them no matter what. And that I'm the one objectifying her by not giving her the option.

You're insane.

Human life is valuable. So is human autonomy. You're essentially saiyng, "Life over autonamy." which is the exact same thing that any communist might say. You shall work and be productive, you shall do as we tell you and you shall live so long as you are useful to the economy.

That's a communist value. I thought you hated communism.



Well that's patently absurd.

http://glo.msn.com/relationships/how-your-kids-can-ruin-your-marriage-6359.gallery#!stackState=0__%2Frelationships%2Fhow-your-kids-can-ruin-your-marriage-6359.gallery

Lots of people are having kids, and the divorce ate is pretty high. Also why do you think Child Support exists? Yeah, that's just total bullshit. Sorry. Kids don't improve relationships 'ten fold' or whatever made up number you pulled from nowhere.



I know it's hard for you, but please try to wrap your mind around the fact that there's a reason something like Child Support exists.



You seem to confuse 'disregard' and 'debunk point for point'.



Oh the projection is so sweet. You should operate movies at a cineplex for all the projection you do.



You're kind of fucking up your data there. The suicide rate for those with abortion are directly related to those that regret their actions and suffer PTSD-related symptoms, like depression.

Therefore, the MOST you can offer is 49%, and I'm hardly willing to grant that since part of the 34% of those who regret their abortions could quite easily double as members of the PTSD or PTSD-related symptoms list.

Not exactly a strong claim you've got here. : /



Capital murder was a statutory offence of aggravated murder in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In the United States, a capital murder is any murder that makes the perpetrator eligible for the death penalty.

So what you're saying is that abortion makes one eligible for the death penalty.

Well, sorry to have to inform you of this, but Abortion is legal...therefore it's by definition, not Capital Murder.



Which, by definition, means that they're not a being. :D



Cancer isn't a 'diseased cell'. It's a tumor of cells that are reproducing too fast. In essence, it's an over abundance of life that the body can't support.



Not really. I think you should be disgraced you don't know literally at all what you're talking about concerning ANYTHING in this issue. including what cancer is.



Well, you'd be wrong, but whatever.



If it's such a low level argument, why does you attempt at rebutting fail so epically?



*yawn* Please, I've been on the Dean's List since my first semester. It's not hard.



Well that was retarded. And demonstrates you have no idea what I said. I nowhere stated, "One is not alive unless they have awareness of themselves." I instead used the term 'biographically alive'. Look it up. :D



Really? Academic settings have no place in real time? Are you against science now? Philosophy too? Where do you think our laws came from? Academic discussions. Duh.



Not true. You might, for one, want to look up 'the mirror test' as well as the book "The Pig Who Sang To the Moon." Animals are a lot more self aware than we realize. Also, again, I didn't say "if they're not aware, they're not alive" I said, "IF they're not aware, they're not persons that have a right to life."



Yup, and I never said anything contrary to that. Of course, the idea that animals don't take multiple things into account and aside from us, they ALL simply act on instinct is absurd, but whatever.



Well, superiority's subjective, but I agree it's a biological being...still not a person.



Well, yeah, 20 odd weeks into the stage, where only less than 1% of all abortions take place. As far as the whole rest of the animal kingdom not developing the slightest bit of cognition within the womb, evidence please.



The cells..have memory in them. No. They simply reproduce and copy. That's all they do. Man being 'superior' to all other life forms is a totally subjective thing that you cannot possibly prove. So...you're spouting nonsense mate. I myself am superior to a zygote. Also, the fetus isn't one with the mother, it's a separate entity that is living off of the host. The fetus is no more a part of the mother than a tapeworm.



No you don't. You just spent a whole paragraph expounding on how superior you think we are to the rest of the animal kingdom. For totally arbitrary and subjective reasons mind you. Plus there's the fact that you can't make a choice between what you say is 5 lives against 1.



For established reasons. One of those being the separation between what we consider a person and what we don't. The line must be drawn somewhere, but I'm not willing to make it a completely arbitrary thing. Like you seem to be.



You know no such thing. You contradict yourself in the manner of one post, your premises don't follow from each other, your conclusions don't follow from the premise's, I'd be surprised if you even knew what logic is.



Of which abortion isn't. So whoopedy doo for you.



Having an abortion prior to the 23rd week doesn't harm the fetus at all. No suffering involved. The thing doesn't even know its alive to fear death, or anything. The vast majority of abortions are about as 'murderous' as washing your hands.



No not really. A lack of counseling takes the lie of the aborter. The abortion doesn't do that.



Well, it protects the economy and saves lives. I'm pretty sure those are good things. Maybe you disagree, I dunno.



The free market isn't some natural self correcting mechanism. The free market doesn't regulate itself. If you would prefer millions of people become unemployed and fuck up the economy more than a little increase in debt to fix the problem could, be my guest.



Failed? I'm pretty sure a lot of people who would be starving in the streets right now without it would tend to disagree with you.

Also, you can call it serial killing all you want, but that's just your opinion. There's a reason it's legal. The judges at Roe V. Wade didn't see it as that. The fact that you do doesn't make it true.



Well yeah. For one, I have healthcare thanks to leftist policies. Civil Unions are allowed thanks to leftist policies, homosexuals can serve openly in the military thanks to leftist policies. Your black and white 'leftists and communist are 100% ruinous' bullshit won't fly. I'm actually educated sonny boy.



Apparently she doesn't, because if she accidentally gets pregnant and doesn't want it, you take that right away. Her womb is no longer hers to control. Why do you hate freedom?



It's not murder no matter how many times you call it that.

Murder implies a person is being killed

A fetus is not a person. :)

We don't give rights to a fetus because conversely we don't expect anything from a fetus. Rights are only assigned to an individual when we expect them to reciprocate in some way. We don't do that with a fetus. In essence, you're giving the fetus the right to life without any expectation of anything in return. That's not how rights work.



You seem to have come to the rather silly conclusion that you have figured everything out and have come to the absolute truth of the matter, and if anyone is smart then they must necessarily agree with you.

How cute.

You're a waste of my time quite frankly Lustful, I'm ashamed I even bothered to debate someone like you. Go ahead and respond if you like, I won't be replying back.

But I will leave you with a comment one of my friends made about this exchange:

"The United States was prospering most during the time in which we were killing fascists. So if we're so concerned about the economy...we should start killing fascists again."

It made me chuckle.

Edit: BAM! Another neg rep. Boy howdy I love pissing people off with the truth.

How'd you jump from "The 5 jars and the child are equal to that of one child." To the conclusion that "One jar is less than that child"? If we're going to talk logic, I want to know how the hell you came up with that premise.

If we were going on a numbers basis, and my belief that all life is equal, then the 5 jars are actually superior to the one child.(Of course, I don't have this belief.) All life is independent of itself, in other words all life has it's own individual value, there is no such thing as collectivism. Each cell of life has an undetermined value, a potential not yet seen in the world. Therefore, I cannot weigh it against another cell of the same value. Nor can I weigh it against the child.

The way we 'weigh' it, is honestly discrimination: The five year old child, having developed its body will reach his potential quicker than the cells(This will be important to note later in the post.) We're not discriminating on the value of the cell/fetus, because its value is unknown and therefore infinite. We're discriminating on the basis of likeliness of return. We only have to wait 13 years for the five year old to enter college, as opposed to the full 18 for the unborn child.







Says the guy that makes jumps in logic to support his own claim, can you please try to refrain from doing that? Unconsciousness is a state of suspension(we already know this, or at least you SHOULD know this.) As proof of this, if you were to kill a comatose victim(No, I don't mean pulling life support. I mean if you were to take a knife and stab the guy in the heart.) it would still be murder.

In fact, that's exactly what abortion is. Killing of the unconscious life. Just like a comatose victim, the zygote/fetus is also temporarily unconscious. We know there'll be a point where the developing fetus gains consciousness. We DO not know when a comatose victim will awaken, or even how much he'll remember or what kind of brain damage has occurred.

Hell, IF he even awakens at all.

You could say that unconsciousness="death", then in a human being, but not for the developing fetus who, if all goes well, will develop said consciousness while its in the womb. However, the unconscious body still has signs of life, some bodily functions that true, would need medical assistance but nevertheless are still there.

So the unconscious person, unless fatally so, is still very much alive. The fact that you can't murder the comatose is the proof of that statement.

However, I want to blow your mind even further with a new intellectual concept for you to consider. The first definition of consciousness: aware of and responding to one’s surroundings.

After the sperm cells have made the journey to the womb, for some odd reason these cells are able to clump together and form a life. Why is that? Could it be luck, or coincidence? But for human life to be born through this method consistently, eliminates those two factors. These cells clump together, because something resonated causing them to respond. Instinctively? But since you declare that it's lifeless, it cannot have instinct.

If it's not luck, coincidence or instinctual, then we have only one other explanation: Consciousness. Those cells are aware, at the tinest fibers of their DNA structure that if they come together at the womb, that they will form a new life. In other words, the cell is a biological animal on the level of that of an animal from the wild.











I'm not debating that these levels of consciousness are the same, that's common knowledge. However, what I stated is that it's not entirely impossible to wake someone from a deep sleep, through normal methods. It might take the alarm clock ten or fifteen minutes to wake me up, but to be sure I'll eventually get up.

Waking up the kid is not feasible in most cases, but it's possible and worth a try(not worth beating your head over, obviously. But you can try.)






When you quite demonstrably show yourself stretching the finer points of logic, or making assumptions(which you told me not to do), that's the definition of hypocrisy. To proclaim a position and not follow it yourself. It's a simple concept, isn't it?






"So a fetus has the right to life because...people are capable of taking care of them, even if they're financially incapable." Congratulations, you finally showed reading comprehension for the first time in this debate, here an internet cookie:



Let me see if I can simplify it even more for you: The fetus has the right to life, the sanctity of life is a moral concept that if we lose it, we'll lose all fabric to our society(Hey, let's just go about killing this person or that person.)

Banks and businesses may make unethical decisions that amounts to stealing, but that doesn't mean armed robbery is acceptable. It's the same concept here, just because it's financially viable to kill off the developing fetus, doesn't make it acceptable. It's still murder.

And if you're living together in the same roof, having consentual sex and if you plan to have a future together, then you'll have to factor that child into your lives eventually.

A fetus is not a 'thing', it's a human life. If we to go into an anime, like Gundam Seed. You're like the scientist who toyed with the fetus, in the name of progress, outright killing the thing. His justification, like yours:

"I know that, that's why I have to see it through to the end!"(In a cult-like trance.) This progress caused division in the series, to the point of a genocidal war, and it created an anti-villian character who wanted to destroy everything because of his own flawed existence in a world that didn't value life.

Hell, even Rau pointed out that for all their self-proclaimed progress, they really went nowhere. There's still war, discrimination and racism. All they did was heighten an already existing problem.







If they've declared love, have intentions of living together and even see themselves raising a family, then yes, it's not logical or ethical to abort the developing life.

Hell, it surprised me to read(in the same link I gave you), a significant minority percentage of men actually encourage women to abort. So in other words, the financial burden is being lifted from the male. How Ironic. You're talking about women's rights, when it's the scumbags of the male species who benefit.





One's a developing life, the other has no such potential, livelihood or feasibility of livelihood. Understand it now? The fertilized egg has distributive properties to itself, qualified as human life. No other cell has even the slightest hope of achieving such a status.

Can you comprehend the superiority one cell has to the other? Can you comprehend that it doesn't even come close? You're comparing God(The Fetus) to an insect(the skin cell.)






Infidelity is natural, it's only human. But as we've seen through those abortion statistics, abortion is hardly the answer. Rather, again, we must hold ourselves to a higher moral standard. And even if the child's father is not biologically known(I don't know mine), that child has the right to growth, development and nourishment.

It goes again, to the major difference between the emphasis I put on life, and the scary lack of emphasis you put on it.

The woman has the right to choose what to do with her own body, except when it considers another life(the fetus) in the equation. You may not consider it one, your disgusting ideological colleagues don't consider it one. Those of us who hold morality, consider it one.

No life is superior to the other, in that we can take it deliberately. If we go down that scope, it's over. Why can't you realize that?






You really do make it easy for me, population control to help the economy. Please, don't run for office. We know how your story ends, it ends in mass genocide and warfare. Secondly, your premise is mistaken based on the fact the newborns are some 16(at the least) years away from participating in the work force.

If anything, a healthy nation with families that are reproducing economically, encourages actual job growth. Do you see prosperity over the African Continent? No, I didn't think so, the famine and genocide doesn't seem to be helping them much.






Even the evil ones, bring something productive to society from time to time. Can you imagine if Stalin didn't work his people to death, and continued pursuing pro-life policies like this one? The Soviet Empire might've actually lasted.

Hell, if we copied and pasted this policy into American politics, that'll be the first start of some sound economic policy.




**Yawn**, And so now your forced to attack me. That's the proof of my victory. But of course, Liberalism which has produced nothing but failure has nothing but an attack to pray upon. It was the same in the democratic campaign for the presidency in '08.

"We cannot afford another four years, so vote for me."

In reality, it might've been the least effective campaign of all time. If not for Bush's general incompetence, as well as their horrible pick of John McCain Republicans would've won such an election in a landslide. Sadly, they chose a miserable hack in Mitt Romney, so they're going to lose this election by at least ten percentage points.

I'm a former Liberal, whose quite dissatisified with the Obama Administration, the bailouts, the disruption of the free market, kenyesian failed economics which led to the collaspe to begin with. The Libya and then Syria engagements.

This failure isn't even political, an apolitical, disinterested person would deem it failure.






A fetus is a developing life, most people concur to that. The forcible elimination of life, is murder. Most people generally concede to that, it's not an opinion or if it is one, it's a mainstream opinion.

The only thing keeping Abortion alive, is the idea of "rights", or the fallacy of the demi-god status of the female. If an intellectual such as myself were to make the political debate, pro-life reform would begin within the next few years.

As proof? Before Abortion's approval, most states were anti-abortion. It was pretty predominate actually, after the end of WW2 and we stopped flirting with eugenics.

Well, until Roe V Wade, we stopped. Now we've become even worse than Communist China, you see, Communist China actually has to force it's women to abort. They kidnap these women, they inject them with drugs and treat them inhumanely.

To Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, Communist China is just the beginning of the Abortion revolution, we should have abortions on a world-stage!

The only reason we don't have such a regime, is that the American citizenry is so apathetic, it approves of such measures on a wide scale. Hence, I call it worse than China.






Actually no, we deduced that at least 80% of abortions, conservatively are for economic reasons. Eliminate the economic problem, as Stalin did, and you'll have an Empire. Once upon a time, America didn't have a wide-open abortion policy and it's productivity was unmatched.

Now? Now our infant morality rate is somewhere around the 50's, our financial structure is collasping and neither the young nor the old have any sort of stability.

Please give me more the 'great' democratic society, that's produced nothing that resembles the pure epicness our Founders gave us. We spoiled greatness.







You yourself concurred to it, so you don't have any right to ask me for statistics.




Doesn't have to be perfect, if we can get this economy back to the levels it was in heck, the 90's, we're good to go. If we can significantly revive the dollar's value, then we can kick China's economic ass. My America has a much brighter future than the democratic America of 'today'.





We can think of feasible solutions, I already mentioned one: Let those overgrown, cancerous organizations die off and allow talented, under-appreciated workers and companies take the fold, the new blood will actually revive the economy.

But no, we can't do that because the morally(and financially bankrupt) big corporation is gonna collaspe, the horror!(Here's a hint, we're not out of the woods yet with the crisis, even Obama has admitted as such.)





I was beginning to think you were so anti-human life, you'd oppose the potential for said medical science and technology to help increase the probability of a safe birth.





Japan(and not just because I'm an otaku on a Fakku site XD). Japan actually has great medical, health and crime standards. And that's dealing with vast inflation. At the end of this China-US-Russia mess, you could look at Japan as the next world power, if they can deal with the inflation of the EN.

I want to make America into Japan, hell, it used to be the other way around a century ago. The Japanese admired the Americans, now look at me. I wish I was born in my ancestor's age.

Japan with inflation>>>>America with inflation and it's not even close.




It may be called America, but ethically and morally, it's not America. A country of bailouts, political divisiveness and moral bankruptcy is far from what we inherited and kept up. Hell, 90's America OWNS the modern day situation on the ground today.




And yet, a woman who didn't even graduate H.S singlehandedly took care of her son for 20 years now, that would be my grandmother. If a non-graduate can do it, so can we. Provided of course, our economy and country doesn't slip even further down the drain. To do that, let's try to value our future as well as our present.

It's not too hard a concept, is it?



What a degenerative thought for one, and for second: Suppose we took such an evil mindset to human life, you'd have to cut down on the healthy adults taking jobs, not the fetus's who, in your mind are lifeless and you know damn well they haven't had their opportunity. No, it's because they haven't had their opportunity that you justify killing them.

Your mindset is like that of the Yotsuba group from Death Note.






Even you acknowledged these cases number probably in the few hundreds, maybe a few thousand. And again, this falls under medical abortions. The lives it saves, pails in comparison to the lives it takes.

Hey, here's an idea: You can use that sentiment for gun control(which I support), the lives guns can save, pails in comparison to the lives taken over the past couple of weeks.



We already discussed this earlier, the loss of a high magnitude of lives doesn't mitigate the few lives you saved. For a geopolitical comparison, no matter how many people the Nazi Army might've helped(and most certainly, for it's own selfish interests), it doesn't take away from the fact that they committed open genocide.

Understand now?





Actually, that isn't logic. You just added another reason to strengthen the original premise. If the first premise(such as "Killing someone takes away their life") is such a significant premise however, there's no need to add anymore reasons.

It's the person without conviction, who questions himself over and over. The person with conviction, doesn't need the questions. A true intellectual is able to quickly decide the pros and cons of a decision, the righteousness or wrongness of a theory and understand why. I don't waste my time asking myself questions to understand a concept, hopefully I paid enough attention that I understand the idea without all of the clutter.

Now in some cases, a clear-cut determination isn't possible. For example, the life of a serial murderer or a high-profile criminal. The reason for this, however still lies with the original premise. It's because the criminal no longer values his life, or the lives around him that we who do value our lives, have to take preventive measures for the rest of society.






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomy For everyone's reference, this is what Lundi's referring to. I think we can all concur to the belief in Human Autonomy, however, there are some decisions that cannot be made morally by individual beings.
This is why we have a system of law and order. And as we've rejected murder of a human being, we should also reject the murder of a developing human being.

And it IS a developing human being, unless you can reference me to a pregnancy where after the mother gave birth, she gave birth to an animal other than a Homo Sapien.

Communism tends to value the collective, over the individual. Those of us who believe in a capitalist society, tend to value both the individual as well as the collective. Hell, it IS the individual that makes the collective.

And since we've already gone ad nauseum about the negatives of abortion as it pertains to the individual mother(let alone the fetus, as well as other family members involved), it's safe to say a capitalist philosopher would never come to agree with abortion.

And to be sure, I believe in capitalism, I don't believe in abortion. I believe in Autonomy, but I believe we don't have rights above our moral judgment. That's what Abortion grants the female, quite mistakenly at that.

We are not Demi-Gods, we have no more justification over the lives of innocent people as they do on us. Your Ethics teacher is failing you miserably, if you can't even comprehend that.



This is the suggestion that children directly impact the divorce rate, it's not a surprising suggestion coming from the same man who believes any life that has lost consciousness for a moment, is dead or is not a being.

Unfortunately for you, your article doesn't back you up whatsoever. Instead, social beliefs on how to raise the child, loss of intimacy and monetary issues are listed as the primary difficulties a family deals with when raising children.

I'd argue these same difficulties would arise from adoption, or heck, even without a child, with the way our wages are, many people have worked up to two jobs. The lack of intimacy in a worker-based economy has always been significant, but even more so in a recession.




In your dream world perhaps.




What am I projecting unto you, your own stupidity? You do that just fine on your own, thank you very much.




Unless the numbers directly correlate to the women they've interviewed, the percentage of women who committed suicide, most likely weren't interviewed by the studies in question(how could they, they're dead.) And secondly, it is a strong claim. Much stronger than the claim that 5% of pregnancies from rape, justifies an open-ended abortion policy. Come on, it shouldn't take rocket science.

49% of women affected severely by abortion VS 5% of women pregnant from rape.

The solution(Abortion) is actually much more deadly than the problem(rape).
All too often, we ignore social problems and social solutions. Because we lack the moral and ethic leadership to actually take responsibility.






Legal, politically, not morally. There's a difference. Hitler deemed the jews inferior, doesn't mean we acknowledged his theories, then or now. And while I know you want to twist the argument in this fashion, I won't allow you: I'm not condemning the female to death for her choice. Rather, my condemnation is on the abortion doctor in the first place. God crucified Eve for eating the apple, he forgot it was Adam who tempted her in the first place.

I won't forget the Adam(the Abortion Doctor) in this case, and of course women can be tempted. For so long, women have been prosecuted. The word 'liberation', no matter what it's consequences appeals to the female psyche.

Which is why Adam was able to taint Eve to begin with.

Condemning in this fashion, also chills back-door abortions. Wanna give back-door abortions? You can, just know that your own life is now lawfully at risk.

One's own life>>>>>>Jail-time. One's own life>>>Any involvement whatsoever with the fetus. Light Yagami was truly a genius and implementing his plan in the real world leads to results like this: The end of capital murder.







It's not obvious to you? We don't have the right to decide who lives or dies, anyone who puts themselves in that position, also must deal with the consequence of being judged in the same manner. The person who murders, should logically be held to account via his own death. But since, for whatever reason I have no clue, most murderers get a jail sentence, fulfill it and to the absolute surprise of no one, kills again!

The disease is breast cancer, it's the deadliest killer of women. So abortion not only murders the fetus, it has a possibility of giving the aborter either a terminal illness, or death through suicide.

It is a killing machine, it does nothing but murder. There isn't anything humane about it. If men really were macho supremacists, they'd be all for abortion and the mass murder of women worldwide in a masucline conspiracy :D







So because 1/5th to 1/4th of women(at best) suffer post partum depression, you equate it to the seriousness of the abortion problem?

Post partum depression, however, has little to do with the actual child. Marriage-related stress is a factor, money is a factor, the spouse is also a factor. But the fetus, who has no comprehension of these things, cannot logically be blamed for these problems. At best, the fetus is an indirect cause.

Whereas the policy of Abortion is a direct and primary cause of PTSD, Breast cancer and the death of the fetus.

You can't argue something's worse than Abortion, it simply can't be done.




It is a being of life(you acknowledged it as biological existence), it just isn't a human being yet. Just as a caterpillar goes through evolutionary stages to reach it's adult form of a butterfly.

Give up yet?



In correct, as the tumorous cells lump together(that's where there are lumps inside the cancer-infected body), these cells then start attacking and destroying white blood cells, and any other cells in it's multiplication process.

How we wish it was as simple as a mere problem with the multiplication system for our cellular structure. If it were, a cure would've likely been found by now.





Coming from you, that speaks a lot. Please stop talking



Just because you don't think you've been rebutted, doesn't mean you haven't been.


*yawn*

Whatever you say my friend, I take pride in my own academic excellence. My journey's been far from an easy one.







Looked it up on google, I still couldn't find the term. But you defined it clearly in that statement. "One is not alive unless they have awareness(consciousness) of themselves." That's exactly your belief, as ascribed earlier.




Actually, western philosophers such as Plato and Socrates were much more in tune with philosophical theory than say, academia as a whole is today. The Founding Fathers themselves, hardly were educated in a scholarly sense. Your right, our modern day laws(such as legal abortion) came from close-minded academics, and a political train thought that can only be described as childish.







Name one situation where an animal acts, rather than reacts? A house pet(such as a dog), gives love out of abundance and that can be classified as an act. But anything else? The animal is 90% reactionary, come on now.

You still haven't answered the question: If not a person, what will a fetus become?
A fetus is inherently a person, it always will be one. You can try to scientifically demote it all you want, but that doesn't change the fact of it's human existence.





Want to go into the wilderness? Go and tell me exactly how many animals act on reason, logic and some kind of philosophy. You're actually arguing this, cute.




Not a person, but it is a being. And all beings are equal before their creator. Therefore, any biological being has the right to life. We do agree to this, otherwise pouching would be legal.




You misread into my statement, what I said was, the animal kingdom doesn't develop the slightest bit of cognition, period. It's awareness is always at that biological level, as if their development was retarded.

As proof of this, the only way an animal develops further is if it the human trains the pet, this is true even of wild animals, via the zoo or the circus. For evolution, the animal is wholly dependent upon Mankind.






Your hubris is so utterly laughable. You and I were both zygotes, we were living off our mothers. Are you saying she had the right to kill us? Where your logic fails, is that you cannot comprehend the zygote as a life. It is simply incomprehensible to you who lacks any moral intelligence.

In a consentual relationship however, the mother has chosen for the seed to be planted in the womb. She opened herself to the connection with her future child.
So it's not like a foreign body invaded the mother and violated her, the fetus was in the case of consentual sex, accepted by the mother. Even yes, in the case of failed contraptive practices. She believes in her lover, in her relationship and her connection. She'll be able to overcome and raise her family with feminine pride.





Our supremacy over the animal kingdom is something that's professed in the abortion policy alone, in addition to the struggles that animal right groups have gone through to struggle to get these same rights, it took activism for ecosystem protection. So please don't tell me it's subjective opinion.

Or if it is subjective opinion, then acknowledge that far from my own opinion, it's the opinion of mainstream society.



It isn't a reason, nor is it established. Only in closed academic minds, is it established. And while I, as a college student am part of academia, I do not accept its closed minded thoughts. Academia has that weakness, it is a place where you can repeat its statements, and even acquire some wisdom from it, but it's a horrible place to actually build an intellectual or moral thesis on.

A reason, is something that makes logical sense, either to the individual(subjective) or to a plethora of individuals(society). Ideally, both. It may make sense to you, and to those closed academics. But to someone of moral intelligence, it makes little sense to me. It's amoral, anti human and it's anti-choice. There's no choice involved in taking a life.





To contradict myself, would be to give a different answer from another, or to change my position. Accepting realities, and differing situations that occur from time to time, does not change the moral position of a person. My moral intelligence didn't wane, I've never contradicted myself once. I value life, and I believe that the more we value life, the more we get out of it.





That's the sad part, don't you understand? It has no voice in whether it lives or dies, it cannot argue for why it wouldn't mind living under those "difficult" situations. I reference back to the "taking candy from a baby", the baby might be aware that something was taken from it, but it has absolutely no recourse to get it back. No hope whatsoever of even confronting the person who did he/she wrongly.

Also, if you think abortion is something where a cell is simply killed, I'll awaken you to the horrifying truth of the matter:



And the video describes early on, about the other abortive measures earlier in the development phases, and they don't sound so, uh, humanitarian is the word we'd use here.

The doctor has videos regarding the first and second trimesters and what's interesting, as it relates to the first trimester: "Even though it has an heartbeat, arms and legs."

So, we're not talking some skin cell here, or some blob. We're talking a development that by this time, is significantly closer to completion.









From that article, it describes how the counseler may not be able to diagnose the patient with PTSD-related disorders, and how it's hard to separate depression from something related to abortion. Their job is incredibly difficult, and blame should not be associated unto them.




We went over this, the lives it saves



Unfortunately, you don't seem to realize that 'little' increase in debt(and by little, Obama is the greatest spender in U.S. Presidential history, in ONE term. He managed to outdo Bush, that's an accomplishment in of itself.) is what may be the last straw that brakes the camel's back.

See: Greece, Europe.







It would interest you that I'm one of those people, and yet I proclaim it as such. Why? Because, it has not developed my family's ability to get a job, it has not improved my economic outlook. I might as well be comatose lying on a hospital bed with a bunch of equipment supporting me.

I call that failure, any true social net would be able to help these families on their feet. Not via a redistribution of wealth, but via some kind of support structure to help them support themselves. That is actually helping these families.





You calling yourself educated is a riot. You have healthcare thanks to what I would call saturation of the market. Health care prices will only continue to increase thanks to Obamacare and the health industry will continue to grow into a monopoly. How do we know this? From the banking industry, the Founders never wanted government to regulate or even to interfere with businesses for this precise reason.

You'll "lament" that health care in much the same way the owners lament their purchase of depreciated homes that they couldn't afford it.





Last response, if you give a person a "right", in exchange for "something", that is not a "right". That is a privilege. You are now proclaiming life is a privilege. And that, is the pure form of your thought process. It's utterly mistaken and incorrect. Life is not a privilege, in the sense that we humans can dictate who owns this privilege and who doesn't.

Life is a privilege in that, I can live every day, and I don't know when the journey ends. If we both see life as a privilege, the comprehension of the kind of privilege we have, and our understanding of how special it is, is levels apart.

And I mean your the one that has to catch up.

[color=#2e1a6b]I found a very convenient and reasonable solution to the whole abortion debate: Life begins at the first Heartbeat.

Who gave Biglundi -1? He can be an asshole, but there wasn't anything bad about that particular post

It wasn't me, I might hold true to my beliefs and I might be stubborn. But I'm an intellectual, and he looks at himself the same way. With my pride as an intellectual, I would never negative rep a belief I didn't have.

I know how it feels, the negative rep is kind of a stigma. It's like a punishment for your beliefs. Even if I think Lundi's a coldhearted bastard, he likely thinks the same of me.

If we can't have our opinions respected, then what was the point of our academic journies? I can respect him for that.

Well, I wasn’t going to enter in this discussion since it was about Todd Akin's retarded understanding of biology, a common place for politicians from all wings, so I don’t really see a big issue. To me, the mass media attention he got is just mud throwing for the incoming presidential elections.

But as the discussion moved to women's right and abortion, and being a woman myself, I feel compelled to participate.

Before I start arguing I would like to clarify one thing: the whole issue lies on the definition of human life, and such definition is always incredibly vague. The definition of life and death in general are incredibly vague. It might seem simple at first sight as you can, most of the times, intuitively comprehend what is living and what is dead, but for a scientific point of view its incredibly hard as science cannot use from intuition to drawn such important line. This issue is well known among biologists and astronomers as they always need a clear definition of life to organize their knowledge, and many “scientific” definitions have been used from them but nonetheless all these definitions have their own flaws and cannot account for a general theory on life. These definitions are usually made to be used for only one specific field of science. So, as the issue of abortion lies on the definition of human life and where it starts, and such definitions depend on the definition of life in general, anyone who claims to have a definitive scientific answer for it is nothing but delusional. Science will have a different conclusion from every field that analyzes the issue, no general theory about it exists yet, and I would say we're very far from having enough knowledge to form such theory. That's why in the end, these discussions will always be about personal morals/values and no definitive answer that everyone can agree on will ever be found. It will always depend on how do you perceive the world around you, not just what you can perceive as human life. But that is not to say we can't use some logic guidelines to discuss it and find the most suitable answer for our current situation.

With that clarified, let's begin.

I'm against abortion save some few exceptions. And the main reason for why I'm against it is specifically because I don’t know what is it that is being aborted. And nobody can know for sure, we can only guess or make conjectures. We all know it is something that was meant to develop and be born at some point, but we can't really say for sure if that it's just an organ of the woman who had the abortion or a separate human being on its own. For every definition I can use to define what is human and what isn't, someone else will come with another definition that can be just as valid as mine.

For example, some say that as human are distinct from other animals over its mind, its intelligence,. It is what make us unique and so can be called a true human attribute. As a mind can only exists if there is a nervous system, the embryo cannot be a human being before it can develop a nervous system, so before this development the embryo is nothing but a mechanic organism of the woman, like a limb or an organ.

But if some say that life is coded on the amino acids, that every distinct amino acid combination represents a separate being, so some can definitely say that an embryo is a human life from the moment there is a genetic fusion between the gamete cells resulting in another distinct DNA. A DNA that is definitely human from the number of chromosomes pair organization and yet is distinct from the mother' and father's DNA, its a new human DNA on its own, and therefore an distinct human being.

Some can say its only human if it can sustain on its own, so only after birth. Some can say there is a human soul in it, so its already human from the moment of fertilization.

There is really no way to know for sure what the fertilized egg truly is. And that's why I'm against abortion. Think about it. We're not dealing with trivial objects here, is not a choice over colors or food. Its about whether an forced act can be a killing of another human being. Or we're just doing a expulsion of a lifeless mechanic organism or we're talking about the forced termination of millions of humans. In a system like this you can't be too cautious, cause if we decide that it is not a human being and later knowledge prove that it actually is an human being, you cannot really say “Oooops, sorry.” can you?

While the opposite situation holds little weight. If we decide its a human being but in fact it is not we only risk a loss of opportunity of possible quality of life improvement, loss of possibility is no genuine loss at all, it's a loss of potential, loss of something which could have happened but since it never happened it can't be truly lost. It is in no way worse than the forced killing of millions of humans. That is pretty much why I'm against it. Simple.

Feminists will argue that I'm ignoring the rights a woman has over her body and collectivists will argue that I'm ignoring the social harm of an unwanted pregnancy brings. And I have to say to both that they're missing the point.

The feminist argument has the problem that no matter how much freedom a woman has over her body, she does not have rights over the bodies of other human beings. If the fertilized egg is in fact an human life the fetus is its body, from its life, not hers. Even though the fetus will depend on her body to live, it's body is it's own, and so only the law of first aggression can justify the killing. If the fetus development does not threat the physical well being of the mother, she does not have to right to kill it, as she would not have if it was any other human being outside her body.

Feminists think a woman has the right to terminate consciously a pregnancy, even if its a human life, because, as they say, “it is leeching on her body, she has the right to choose how other beings will use her body”. It draws a comparison with a parasite, another being with its own body that is dependent on someone else's body, and as anyone obviously have the right to kill a parasite that is dependent on one's body even if its not threatening the host's physical well being, a woman can kill a fetus because it is leeching her body too. To begin with, a fetus is not a parasite, if it is an human being rights apply differently. Second, a pregnancy is not a disease. A disease is when the body doing something he shouldn’t be doing normally, a pregnancy certainly doesn’t enter in that definition. And third and most important of all, it completely ignores the line of causality, one of the essential principles to define a right. The lines of causality of both a fetus and parasite are the opposite of each other. The parasite exists as a being before the host can have any interaction with it. It's the parasite who will have to act, to do something, to enter in the host's body. The parasites instinctively act, as a being, to depend on someone else's body. The line of causality starts first on the parasite. In a pregnancy the line of causality is reversed, specifically because the being did not exist before the “host-parasite” situation. It's not the act of the embryo that resulted in this situation but the opposite. It was the act of the woman (sex) which caused the creation of the human being and forced a host dependency situation (pregnancy). Its her own act, with her own consequences. The host condition is her responsibility to care, not her property to command. That is the point most of feminists miss about pregnancies.

Of course, if the act that caused the pregnancy (sex) was not on her own, that is, was not willing, the line of causality doesn’t start on her and so she is not responsible of her situation. In this case, to me, she is liable of abortion even though it is a human life inside her, as she is not liable of her situation. If abortion is chosen, I believe the charges of homicide should be put on the rapist together with the rape charge, as he is liable of the pregnancy condition alone.

The collectivism argument is totally weak and misguided. First it fails badly on the gradation of damages. In no way a loss of quality of life from an unwanted pregnancy is worse than the conscious killing of another human being. Second, this loss of quality is purely situational, it depends on a lot of other factors which in turn depends on the couple itself. And third, it also ignores the line of causality of a pregnancy and perverse the concept of responsibility.

That's why I'm against the legalization of abortion save some few exceptions.

No one accused you.

And it doesn't matter who -1 who, this forum is where you can state your opinion. And as long as you hold true to your beliefs when others disagree, that's the important thing. And if you bother to negative rep someone, at least own up to it AND explain why you disagree. If you don't agree at least respect others opinions. It's least you could do.



Again, whats a legitimate rape?! Please explain.

How I see it, there's rape and.... there's rape, and there's nothing legitimate about it!

And to put an "educated perspective" on it is just wrong! If your going to look at perspectives, why you don't you look from the victims point of view, or the families, and the victims friends.

Sorry if I'm coming on too strong, this is just a big subject for me.

From my legal understanding a legitimate rape is simply a rape that occurred, that is real. An illegitimate rape is a term used usually when referring to an false accusation of rape, a rape charge where the rape didn't actually happen.

Also, as someone else pointed out here, the word “rape” might be used in other legal terms but don't necessarily infer that a sex act was made without consent, for example Statutory Rape (sex with a minor, below the age of consent). As the minor doesn’t have legal liability to consent in any sexual act, the legal assumption will always be that there wasn’t consent, even if there was a sincere consent from the part of the minor. Date rape is also a term were the word “rape” is present but doesn't refer specifically to the rape itself, rather to the tentative of rape, a rape assault, regardless if the rape assault was successful or not. Some legal experts also argue that Seduction can be a form of Statutory Rape as a Seduction always infer that the consent was subverted from the seduced and under normal circumstances there wouldn't be a consent at all.

On context, the term used by Akin was referring to the sexual crimes where the rape (sex without genuine consent) actually happened, a rape that is real, that's why the use of the term legitimate rape. And indeed, analyzing these cases only, conception (successful fertilization) is a low on statistic (according to gynecology textbooks, not just John Willke academic work), usually between 2%~5%.

The retarded statement comes from the comprehension of these statistics. The process of fertilization, implantation and maintenance of a pregnancy is highly dependent on a storm of hormones and complex metabolic systems. Many scientific researches have pointed out that depression lower the rates of a successful pregnancy specifically because the depression state builds a weak and incomplete hormone balance, which is crucial for a successful pregnancy. A woman that has been raped can easily, and most of the times will, fall into depression, making the chances of pregnancy lower compared to the chances of a healthy consensual sex act. A rape does indeed have, statistically, a lower chance of pregnancy given these facts, but Akin's remark totally misunderstands the findings of the scientific papers. The scientific papers refer to Conception, the fertilization, resulting from a legitimate rape, but this one is not low because of the lower chance of successful pregnancy but because in most of the cases a woman who has been raped will use the Day After Pill as a form of emergency birth control, which prevents the conception to occur by blocking the gamete fusion.

Akin was probably referring to these hormone balances when stating that the “[...]the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down“ (and if you think about it, a Day After Pill works because it destroys this hormone balance, so it can somewhat enter in Akin's definition, surprisingly).

His whole statement is just a commentary preceding his opinion on how to deal with a pregnancy that follows a rape assault, which being a pro-life himself is to secure the fertilized egg and increase the charges on the rapist. But since you have a presidential election campaign going on, and the mass media is highly biased to the left-wing, they decided to use his remark as mud throwing ammunition and make a lot of fuzz out of it to boost Obama's campaign. This whole scandal is nothing but election campaign mud throwing.

This is what Akin (and fellow bill signer, Paul Ryan!) actually beleive.
All rape is legitimate: stop qualifying it, and stop qualifying reasons for abortion.

God I hate politically motivated ad's like this; Make a hyperbole ad so as to get the message out, not scrutnizing their own message. In other words, lying to the American People.

Then after said hyperboled, overblown ad which brings nothing to the debate: "This ad isn't politically supported". Yeah, and I'm a girl.

If any AD is going to get out on TV, at least let it be factual. No hyperbole, speak the truth. Those days are over thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Citizen United VS USA.

Expect more political hyperbole, distortion in the future

...It's not an ad.
It's a video parody.

I can't imagine any politician endorsing the violent content of this satire, let alone a television station airing it.

Okay, but still, it annoys me when messages are one-slanted, without encouraging debate. And let me be clear: There is no 'debate' as it regards Rape being 'redefined', there is only one Rape: Wherein a male violates a woman whether it be forcefully or through deceit or intimation, in a sexual manner.

The only distinction that can be made, is whether it's rape or sexual Harassment. And those distinctions specifically relate to the courtroom during a charge.

The debate is, whether the Republican Position is as extreme as many have painted it. I doubt that, political hyperbole is shaping the course of this debate.

Making this a terrible election year, I've no interest in voting at this point.

My take on this is that our education system is failing us. Only in America [it feels like] can a well-'educated', well-bred man substitute political or moral ideals for scientific fact.

Sorry, but I believe that's a very unintelligent argument; "Men are the only ones who can commit rape. Women can't." Females have the ability to force others into sexual submission, however unlikely it seems. We also, as a society, seem to dismiss that females would even do that, although the 1% margin of perpetrators from 1997 leaves it to be females.

Besides, males can be violated by other males or females, and females can be violated by other females and males.

Granted this isn't the most intelligent response I've come up with, it still brings something I disagree with to light so others can give their opinions on that.

But what exactly is, scientific fact? http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

If we're to take these statistics, as well as the 5% statistic, it's pretty clear that pregancies resulting from rape are a rare occurrence and not some huge problem that the female community harps it to be. This is also another informative piece, one I think should greatly interest you:

http://publicsquare.net/why-pregnancy-due-to-rape-fails-as-a-justification-for-abortion

This is more of a philosophical piece, but it advocates for some books that appear to represent the female position on the issue, and it goes into more specific detail about the high suicide-to-abortion rate. Namely, that to female victims of rape(hell, to females in general) it would appear that abortion is nothing more than a second occurrence of rape.

If this is to be held true, then what of the female community which advocates to rape itself again? Could it be that females, also have limited knowledge about abortion, in spite of chatising males who hold a pro-life position for not being a woman?

Then can it only be said that those who've experienced abortion have a true say in it?

I just did a quick look at the folks running the site in your first link.
I go to the damn "About" page and an abortion video comes up? How unprofessional.
Going to the Contact Us page, and Directors, the leaning of the site is very clear:

http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/site/directors/
One main leader (a mere registered nurse):
"Lois Cunningham, R.N.
Director of Crisis Pregnancy Outreach"
"In this capacity, she offers consultation to crisis pregnancy centers across the country [...] to be more effective in reaching and meeting the needs of abortion-vulnerable women."

"Abortion-vulnerable"? Aka women making a choice about their personal health within their rights?

Crisis pregnancy centers are places that advertise on major city billboards as medical health centers, when in reality women who go there seeking abortion help are convinced (often with simply false, unscientifically-sound "information", overly goery and highly uncommonly-experienced abortion procedural images/films, and guilted about a human life that may or may not even exist within oneself) to not abort.
These places are in no way medical facilities, offer no medical aid, and are not licensed medical providers, though they parade themselves as such.
There is a coming government crackdown on such quack groups, due to the misinformation they provide to ignorant populations that often have high teen/unplanned birthrates (both from consensual sex and rape).

Looking at the other leaders of this group, it is clear their leanings are entirely pro-life. Therefore, non-objective in terms of the effects of various procedures and pharmaceuticals. Not to mention, to endorse this woman is to embrace what ills she herself helps to create and further.
So pretty much, any info coming from that site is utter BS meant to trick people.

Just an FYI.

As to the second link?

NONE of their directors even work in a registered medical field. Zip.
http://publicsquare.net/about-us/board-of-directors

Lolikittie is very much in the right, here.
These folks have supplanted facts with morals to the very core. And the evidence is pretty clear.

Take note that Gizgal had no objections(or couldn't find any) to the facts brought forth, whether it be the statistical facts, or the theological arguments that were presented. Nor could he obviously attack the authors and the testimonies from the books. All he could do(and tried to do), was attack the directors of the board and those supporting them.

We brought up the name Planned Parenthood before, shall I bring up their spokesperson if we're going to play this game?

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html Oh, don't worry there's more than one link about this murderous woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEja-1emRic

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

And this woman's reasons? "Well, I was born in a poor family and I concluded it was because it was too big"(I'm literally paraphrasing her stupidity. An insult to me reading such low level trash.)

No, Ms.Sanger, your family wasn't poor because it was too big(though it's a socio-economic factor.) But, if say the family were well supported financially, it could hold up to a large number. So the main cause of your family's poverty, was in a combination of a child(including yours, btw) inability to fend for itself, the parents were unable to meet the demands of such an overly large family.

Reading Sanger's quotes(from the third link), it's actually quite disgusting how modern her thoughts have become. I was right: This country's going down the drain, FAST.

Oh, and while I'm at it, how 'well-educated' are Americans on this disgusting fact:
http://articles.cnn.com/2006-05-08/health/mothers.index_1_mortality-rate-death-rate-world-s-mothers?_s=PM:HEALTH