That's a very interesting post. I would say we also have a lot of ground to make in the education/availability of birth control as well. In fact, I think if this happened then abortion would be much less of an issue.

Also for the record, I am not against abortion. I just think/wish/hope that people (damn you black people!!!) start to get more educated about BC, so that it doesn't even come to that. Also, after going through a pregnancy with my wife and seeing the ultrasound photos, feeling the kicks, etc...... I think the time where abortions should be legal is pretty much the first trimester (barring high risk pregnancies and other crazy outliers).

PS: My comment about black people was intended to be funny and not racist.

5/15/2011 8:18:30 PM

Quote :

"On the other end of things, black people disproportionately do not qualify to adopt. So what we end up with is a lot of black babies available for adoption and not a lot of black parents able to adopt. If we banned abortion and attempted to replace it with adoption, obviously the racial disparity between adoptable babies and adoptive families would get even greater."

Additionally black children tend to be less likely to be adopted:
a non-African-American baby has a probability of attracting the interest of an adopting parent at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=7647

5/15/2011 9:18:16 PM

Quote :

"I would say we also have a lot of ground to make in the education/availability of birth control as well. In fact, I think if this happened then abortion would be much less of an issue."

And the same fucks in our government that want to ban abortion in a religious pandering parade will throw this baby out with the bathwater as well. Planned Parenthood and Title X does a lot more than just abortions.

It's not really about saving little unborn children; it's about controlling your life.

5/15/2011 10:44:12 PM

Quote :

"So adoption as an alternative to illegal abortion would be a privilege primarily reserved for white women and the white families who are able to adopt."

Yeah realized it wouldn't work. Just thought it would be nice if it did.

5/16/2011 1:27:01 AM

force women to have these children and then allow them to be adopted by industry.

create a new slave caste out of them which allows us to out-compete asia.

please liberals and bible-thumpers by letting them live, please conservatives by boosting big-business.

you cant lose!

5/16/2011 8:22:13 AM

Quote :

"An abortion is taking personal responsibility for their actions by ensuring that they don't bring a baby into a bad financial or personal situation until the time is right."

FALSE. the time to make that decision is BEFORE YOU GET PREGNANT. not after. the time to make the decision that you don't want a child is BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING THAT COULD CAUSE YOU TO HAVE A CHILD. ducking the consequences after the fact is NOT responsibility.

Quote :

"Once you get pregnant, abortion is just the easy way out, which (once again IMO) is the very antithesis of responsibility"

bingo.

Quote :

"Not to mention the growing population of Earth. Eventually we will have to do something, and this unrestrained baby making is going to fuck all of us over."

Well, then, clearly we need to get rid of doctors. They keep people from dying. We need to allow murder, too, because that helps lower the population. Hospitals also have to go!

5/16/2011 5:48:03 PM

Quote :

"FALSE. the time to make that decision is BEFORE YOU GET PREGNANT. not after. the time to make the decision that you don't want a child is BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING THAT COULD CAUSE YOU TO HAVE A CHILD. ducking the consequences after the fact is NOT responsibility."

It's not false. The more responsible thing would be to either not have sex or use a condom.

We both agree that it is irresponsible to bring a child into a bad economic or family situation.

However, your view is that the parents should face the consequences of their actions. This would great if the consequences of their actions only affected them. In this instance, letting a child face the consequences of their parents poor decision is irresponsible. As such, an abortion would save the potential child a lot of heartache and a bad childhood that nobody wants to see. That, in my book, is taking responsibility of the welfare of your potential child. Sure, the parents are irresponsible. But after their initial fuck up, it would be even more irresponsible to continue through while being aware of the full outcome of your actions when there is another course of action.

You have a very narrow perspective of responsibility, when in fact responsibility is such a grey issue in general as to how much to assign and who to assign it to.

Quote :

"Once you get pregnant, abortion is just the easy way out, which (once again IMO) is the very antithesis of responsibility"

Once when a person is pregnant, that's it. What justification do you have on forcing a child to live in poverty or a bad family situation? How is that responsible? This whole "SHOULDA THOUGHT O' THAT BEFORE YOU FUCKED HERRR DEEE DURRRR" crap is nothing more than a cop out when there is another option.

Quote :

"Well, then, clearly we need to get rid of doctors. They keep people from dying. We need to allow murder, too, because that helps lower the population. Hospitals also have to go!"

Except you're promoting the killing and willful death of humans...

A fetus/zygote aren't human.

5/16/2011 6:33:07 PM

Quote :

"A fetus/zygote aren't human."

says you.

Quote :

"It's not false. "

Actually no. Nowhere, ever has "responsibility" meant "ducking out on the consequences." Never.

Quote :

"As such, an abortion would save the potential child a lot of heartache and a bad childhood that nobody wants to see."

So you say. Maybe the child would change the lives of its parents and also have a great childhood and grow up to be the next Bill Gates. two can play the prognosticator.

Quote :

"You have a very narrow perspective of responsibility"

Maybe. But I'd still maintain that it is the antithesis of responsibility to try to avoid the consequences of your own actions.

Quote :

"What justification do you have on forcing a child to live in poverty or a bad family situation?"

Because every single last child that isn't aborted will live in poverty. Hell, a lot of abortions are performed on daddy's little girl in order to spare the family the embarrassment.

Quote :

"This whole "SHOULDA THOUGHT O' THAT BEFORE YOU FUCKED HERRR DEEE DURRRR" crap is nothing more than a cop out when there is another option."

please forgive me if I don't consider murder to be "another option."

Quote :

"Except you're promoting the killing and willful death of humans..."

But wouldn't that help reduce world population? After all, that's what you said... "The world has too many people." What a stupid argument, lol. moreover, if one believes an unborn child is a human, then being "pro-abortion" would also mean "promoting the killing and willful death of humans." fail on you

[Edited on May 16, 2011 at 9:28 PM. Reason : ]

5/16/2011 9:26:31 PM

Quote :

"says you."

Exactly. Says me. Nothing you can really do to prove me wrong or right.

Quote :

"So you say. Maybe the child would change the lives of its parents and also have a great childhood and grow up to be the next Bill Gates. two can play the prognosticator."

Yeah. I see that play out ALL the time! I guess that's one of those cases where the parents make a judgment call based on known facts and their projection of the future to the best of their ability...

Quote :

"Maybe. But I'd still maintain that it is the antithesis of responsibility to try to avoid the consequences of your own actions."

You can "maintain" it all you want. You fail to recognize that the consequences of the parents affects more than just the parents.

Quote :

"Because every single last child that isn't aborted will live in poverty. Hell, a lot of abortions are performed on daddy's little girl in order to spare the family the embarrassment."

So you have no justification on forcing a child to live in poverty or in a bad family situation. Instead you provided me with a baseless cop out and a strawman. Awesome.

Quote :

"please forgive me if I don't consider murder to be "another option.""

It's not murder. I love how you're trying to appeal to our emotions, yet you keep ignoring that you're not killing a conscious, developed fetus that is incapable of becoming conscious and independent...

Quote :

"But wouldn't that help reduce world population?"

Absolutely. But I never promoted the mass killing of humans. Another strawman.

Quote :

"After all, that's what you said... "The world has too many people.""

Funny... That's in quotes, yet I never said that...

I did however say this:

Quote :

"Not to mention the growing population of Earth. Eventually we will have to do something, and this unrestrained baby making is going to fuck all of us over."

Hmmmm. Nowhere did I indicate that the world currently has too many people. I said that the human population is growing unrestrained. Murder is a reactive action, while abortion would be pro-active, like what China did.

Quote :

"moreover, if one believes an unborn child is a human, then being "pro-abortion" would also mean "promoting the killing and willful death of humans." fail on you"

How is it fail on me? Unless you manipulate my words (which I'm sure you will), I never quite said that I believe that an "unborn child" (I love how you say "unborn child" instead of fetus or zygote. Another pathetic attempt to appeal to someone's emotion rather than their logic) is a human.

And believe it or not, I don't believe someone who is brain dead to be human either. And yes, I believe in euthanasia to prevent the suffering of someone. But hey, euthanasia is MURDER too!

5/16/2011 11:03:59 PM

Quote :

"And the same fucks in our government that want to ban abortion in a religious pandering parade will throw this baby out with the bathwater as well."

They are also the people who preach against teaching about BC in school in favor of abstinence.

Quote :

"FALSE. the time to make that decision is BEFORE YOU GET PREGNANT. not after. the time to make the decision that you don't want a child is BEFORE YOU DO SOMETHING THAT COULD CAUSE YOU TO HAVE A CHILD. ducking the consequences after the fact is NOT responsibility."

You know the more I read burro's posts the more it looks like he has some very weird sexual ideas. It really looks like he thinks that people should be "punished" for having sex. "SHUT YOUR LEGS" etc
Very interesting...

Quote :

" Maybe. But I'd still maintain that it is the antithesis of responsibility to try to avoid the consequences of your own actions."

Well I maintain it is more responsible to have an abortion than to bring yet another unwanted human being into this world...

5/17/2011 6:57:48 AM

Quote :

"Murder is a reactive action, while abortion would be pro-active, like what China did."

OK, then we just pro-actively decide upon people we want to kill. would that be A-OK to you?

Quote :

"Yeah. I see that play out ALL the time! I guess that's one of those cases where the parents make a judgment call based on known facts and their projection of the future to the best of their ability..."

Point being, to say that every single child will have a horrible life is as equally absurd as saying every single child will grow up to be Bill Gates. As in, the argument of "poverty" is stupid.

Quote :

"You fail to recognize that the consequences of the parents affects more than just the parents."

I'm well aware of that. but we're talking about what constitutes "responsibility." And nowhere is "ducking out on the consequences" a definition of being "responsible."

Quote :

"Instead you provided me with a baseless cop out and a strawman."

Where is the strawman? You have repeatedly said that abortion keeps children out of poverty. Without any facts or statistics to back it up!

Quote :

"It's not murder. I love how you're trying to appeal to our emotions, yet you keep ignoring that you're not killing a conscious, developed fetus that is incapable of becoming conscious and independent..."

you devalue life. that's fine. so did Hitler. So, if I went up to Terri Schaivo and stuffed a pillow over her head, it's not murder? After all, she's not conscious and shows no ability to be conscious or independent.

Quote :

"How is it fail on me? Unless you manipulate my words (which I'm sure you will), I never quite said that I believe that an "unborn child" (I love how you say "unborn child" instead of fetus or zygote. Another pathetic attempt to appeal to someone's emotion rather than their logic) is a human."

because an unborn child IS a human, no matter how much you say otherwise.

Quote :

"You know the more I read burro's posts the more it looks like he has some very weird sexual ideas. It really looks like he thinks that people should be "punished" for having sex. "SHUT YOUR LEGS" etc "

No, people shouldn't be "punished" simply for having sex, but people SHOULD realize that sex has consequences and that it is about more than just having fun. And no, I'm not going religious here. If you are willing to have sex for the fun of it, then you also need to be willing to bear the consequence of raising a child. Don't wanna raise a child? get/give a BJ instead.

Quote :

"Well I maintain it is more responsible to have an abortion than to bring yet another unwanted human being into this world..."

well, I maintain that 2+2=5, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary. Nowhere is it "responsible" to not deal with the consequences of your actions. never. at no point is murdering a child because he is an inconvenience to you a "responsible" action.

[Edited on May 17, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

5/17/2011 6:04:23 PM

ah aaronburro and his endless, circular, semantics arguments

5/17/2011 6:08:07 PM

Quote :

"OK, then we just pro-actively decide upon people we want to kill. would that be A-OK to you?"

If you count fetuses as people, then we already have done that, haven't we?

And if you don't count fetuses like people, then we're able to get to the same end without killing people.

Quote :

"Point being, to say that every single child will have a horrible life is as equally absurd as saying every single child will grow up to be Bill Gates. As in, the argument of "poverty" is stupid."

Except I never said that every single child will have a horrible life...

Quote :

"Where is the strawman? You have repeatedly said that abortion keeps children out of poverty. Without any facts or statistics to back it up!"

1) I have said that abortion helps keep children out of poverty and bad family situations.
2) What statistical evidence do you need when logically if a mother is poor, and she gives birth to a child while she is poor, the child will be in poverty... Unless of course you're trying to twist my argument to mean that a child will be born into poverty and will remain poor, which is something I never said.

As to your strawman:

Quote :

"Because every single last child that isn't aborted will live in poverty."

Is something I never said or implied. I never once said that every single child that is not aborted will live in poverty.

And it is amazing that you still haven't provided justification for forcing a child to live in poverty or in a bad family situation.

Quote :

"you devalue life. that's fine. so did Hitler."

Woot! Another appeal to emotion! Glad it amounts to nothing logically.

Quote :

"So, if I went up to Terri Schaivo and stuffed a pillow over her head, it's not murder?"

No. It wouldn't be murder because she's dead, dumbass. You realize that they removed her feeding tube which thereby "murdered" her.

But I really think giving her a lethal injection instead of dehydrating her by a withholding life saving/sustaining nourishment.

Quote :

"because an unborn child IS NOT a human, no matter how much you say otherwise."

Quote :

"Nowhere is it "responsible" to not deal with the consequences of your actions. never. at no point is murdering a child because he is an inconvenience to you a "responsible" action."

Yeah! So lets bring a baby into a family with a mentally unstable/immature mother who doesn't have the funds, resources or care to properly raise their child! That is SO much better! As long as the mother suffers the consequences of her actions. IT'S ALL ABOUT PRINCIPLE PEOPLE!

Yeah tihs makes perfect sense. I know I misspelled "this," but going back and FIXING my mistake would be irresponsible of me and I need to face the consequences of my actions for making a mistake!

5/17/2011 7:12:32 PM

http://www.theonion.com/articles/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex,20476/

5/18/2011 9:26:19 PM

So the bill requiring the wait and ultrasounds is predicted to cost the state 7 million dollars. I thought we were supposed to curtail wasteful government spending?

5/19/2011 3:51:05 PM

not if it supports the conservative christian social agenda.

5/19/2011 3:59:15 PM

aaronburro is one of those god-fearing fucks that tucks his shirts into blue jeans.

5/20/2011 11:02:12 AM

I tuck my shirts into my blue jeans.

5/20/2011 12:34:00 PM

im sorry smc- i didnt mean to slight you in the least.

as long as you arent pandering the good book door to door, i forgive you.

5/20/2011 12:47:01 PM

I just really like Seinfeld, is all.

5/20/2011 12:49:42 PM

Quote :

"Except I never said that every single child will have a horrible life..."

and yet, you bring it up as a reason to support abortion. How many un-aborted children will have shitty lives? what is your threshold for this to matter?

Quote :

"What statistical evidence do you need when logically if a mother is poor, and she gives birth to a child while she is poor, the child will be in poverty..."

maybe evidence to show the prevalence of this?

Quote :

"And it is amazing that you still haven't provided justification for forcing a child to live in poverty or in a bad family situation."

forcing which child? The child that isn't born into poverty? Or the mythical ones you swear would be? Your argument here depends on the notion that an aborted child, ANY aborted child, is spared from a life of poverty. Nowhere have you qualified the notion of preventing some children from poverty. It's always preventing a child, as if to say that every child that is aborted is spared. Thus, the lack of a strawman from me.

Quote :

"Woot! Another appeal to emotion!"

Not at all. You are clearly devaluing life. If someone wants to put an emotional connotation on that, they can. I'll just point it out.

Quote :

"No. It wouldn't be murder because she's dead, dumbass. "

when she was "alive," dumbass. You know EXACTLY what I meant. Nice way to avoid the point, though.

Quote :

"Yeah! So lets bring a baby into a family with a mentally unstable/immature mother who doesn't have the funds, resources or care to properly raise their child!"

Because, again, that's every single instance, isn't it? You seem to keep coming back to this. Yet, you claim you aren't saying that every aborted child is spared this... See my point?

Quote :

"As long as the mother suffers the consequences of her actions. IT'S ALL ABOUT PRINCIPLE PEOPLE!"

Actually, it's about NOT MURDERING DEFENSELESS PEOPLE for convenience.

Quote :

"Yeah tihs makes perfect sense. I know I misspelled "this," but going back and FIXING my mistake would be irresponsible of me and I need to face the consequences of my actions for making a mistake!"

Did you really try to make spellcheck analogous to abortion? REALLY?

5/20/2011 7:02:19 PM

5/20/2011 7:15:32 PM

I'll bet you one unplanned pregnancy that you didn't fully consider the risks of having sex before you opened your legs

5/20/2011 7:16:53 PM

WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE?

I haven't followed this thread but I'm guessing you never backed the fuck down and realized that if someone ends the life of a clump of cells in a womb that it doesn't effect you one fucking bit, right?

Let God decide.

5/20/2011 7:22:59 PM

Quote :

" How many un-aborted children will have shitty lives? what is your threshold for this to matter?"

Neither of us can answer that. That's when it should be the parent's responsibility to determine what is best for their child, and if they feel that not having that child is the best option, then who am I or you to judge?

Quote :

" How many un-aborted children will have shitty lives? what is your threshold for this to matter?"

Why does it matter how prevalent it is? As far as I'm concerned, you're just promoting further state intrusion into parenting and people's decisions...

Quote :

"forcing which child? The child that isn't born into poverty? Or the mythical ones you swear would be? Your argument here depends on the notion that an aborted child, ANY aborted child, is spared from a life of poverty. Nowhere have you qualified the notion of preventing some children from poverty. It's always preventing a child, as if to say that every child that is aborted is spared. Thus, the lack of a strawman from me."

Quote :

"ah aaronburro and his endless, circular, semantics arguments"

Quote :

"Not at all. You are clearly devaluing life. If someone wants to put an emotional connotation on that, they can. I'll just point it out."

Yet, you are comparing it to Hitler when the two situations aren't in anyway similar...

Quote :

"when she was "alive," dumbass. You know EXACTLY what I meant. Nice way to avoid the point, though."

You never made a point... She was "murdered," nobody went to jail, and only the Christian fundamentalist right got into a big uproar about it being murder, much like abortion...

Whether you remove the feeding tube or put a pillow on her head, you're doing the same fucking thing.

Quote :

"Because, again, that's every single instance, isn't it? You seem to keep coming back to this. Yet, you claim you aren't saying that every aborted child is spared this... See my point?"

You seem to be getting caught up in semantics to avoid the point.

Quote :

"Yeah! So lets bring any baby into a family with a mentally unstable/immature mother who doesn't have the funds, resources or care to properly raise their child!"

Happy?

Quote :

"Actually, it's about NOT MURDERING DEFENSELESS PEOPLE for convenience."

No. It's principle. It always has been with you. You fail to acknowledge that some parents are choosing the have abortions to spare their future child any pain. You have failed to grasp the most important facet of child rearing/pregnancy, and that's the child's happiness and giving them the opportunity to make the most out of their life. It's not forcing parents to live up to their responsibilities, it's not to appease some imaginary dude in the sky, it's not to appease the Republicans and their Christian constituents.

The second you start ignoring the child's happiness and limiting the options parents have to give their children the happiest childhood that they can possibly provide, then we as a society have lost sight of our goals. If a parent feels that they are able to provide for their child in a manner that allows their child to have a happy childhood, then you an I both agree that they should not have a child. Where we differ is on our goals. And perhaps you don't think I "get" or "understand" your point, but I do.

I don't like abortions any more than you do from a personal aspect. But I don't feel that my personal feelings should force any mother to give birth to a child when they do not feel that they can provide a happy childhood for them and give them the opportunity to lead a happy life.

If you want to take a philosophical "we don't know the future" approach, that's fine. I maintain that a mother has the right to decide whether they are able to care for their child.

If you want to take the stance that they made that choice when they chose to have sex, that's also fine. It's a naive and ignorant stance to take. Two consenting adults can choose to have sex and also choose to not have a baby. Given the nature of the act, it's possible that what you intend to happen doesn't work out. In other words, shit happens.

And yes, some people do choose to have abortions out of convenience, just as some people choose to have abortions because they do not feel that they can provide a good life for their child. No, I don't like it that people have abortions out of convenience, but throwing the baby out with the bath water helps no one. As far as I'm concerned as well, a mother who has an abortion can always choose to get pregnant again when the time is right, and to me, it becomes a situation of nothing to lose and everything to gain.

In conclusion, we obviously differ, we're not getting anywhere and we're not changing anyone's opinion. I think you're trying to push your own personal beliefs onto other people by equating a fetus/zygote to a fully developed baby. On some grounds we agree (like a fetus 24 hours before birth is pretty much exactly the same as a baby 24 hours after birth, and that whether a fetus in the womb or not is a shitty qualification of when you can and cannot have a baby). While you may not agree, we as a society have seemed to place higher value on a fetus 24 hours before birth than that of a zygote 24 hours after conception.

I know you will say that I'm copping out, and honestly, I don't care. This is now turning into a circle jerk of bullshittery and I think most people here think you're an idiot who's ultimately using your religion to justify your beliefs and then using your beliefs to push your ideological view onto the rest of the population.

Quote :

"Did you really try to make spellcheck analogous to abortion? REALLY?"

It was a sarcastic remark while also making a point. The point being that you feel that people who have made a mistake should not be allowed to correct it when a corrective action is available.

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 7:52:21 PM

Quote :

"That's when it should be the parent's responsibility to determine what is best for their child, and if they feel that not having that child is the best option, then who am I or you to judge?"

Yeah, who am I to judge if a child should be murdered or not.

Quote :

"Why does it matter how prevalent it is?"

Because we shouldn't be making broad-reaching laws to handle a problem that doesn't fucking exist, maybe? Wow, that was hard!

Quote :

"Yet, you are comparing it to Hitler when the two situations aren't in anyway similar... "

Both devalue life for convenience. remarkable similarity.

Quote :

"You never made a point..."

no, you fucking evaded it.

Quote :

"You seem to be getting caught up in semantics to avoid the point. "

Not at all. You keep bringing it up as if it's incredibly important, as if it's a major driving point, almost to the point of suggesting that every single child that is aborted is spared a life of poverty, despite any proof that such a thing is the case.

Quote :

"No. It's principle. It always has been with you. You fail to acknowledge that some parents are choosing the have abortions to spare their future child any pain. You have failed to grasp the most important facet of child rearing/pregnancy, and that's the child's happiness and giving them the opportunity to make the most out of their life"

And if you REALLY feel that way, then you should think about that fact BEFORE you get in the situation of murdering a child.

Quote :

"I maintain that a mother has the right to decide whether they are able to care for their child."

Then why is the demarcation point of when that decision can be made set to when the baby plops out of a vagina? What magical difference occurred in the 20 seconds before and after it plopped out of the vagina? Or, is the mother allowed to decide when the child is 6 months that she can't take care of it? 2 years?

Quote :

"The point being that you feel that people who have made a mistake should not be allowed to correct it when a corrective action is available."

People should be able to correct mistakes, but NOT when the correction involves killing an innocent human being. Seems pretty rational to me

5/20/2011 9:20:30 PM

The best way to determine if something is a human would be by DNA. At conception, new and unique human dna is generated. At that point, mitosis begins and you have an individual multicellular animal with unique DNA. There is no arguing those facts.

Quote :

""because an unborn child IS NOT a human, no matter how much you say otherwise.""

This is so idiotic. How would you classify a fetus if it is not a human? Do you not even acknowledge that it is a living thing? Just curious as to how wrong you are on this issue.

T

5/20/2011 9:47:42 PM

didn't you know? Even though it has different DNA than the mother, it's still part of her body.

5/20/2011 10:10:00 PM

Unfertilized eggs have different DNA from the mother, are they part of her body?

5/20/2011 10:24:55 PM

^^^ DNA, to me, isn't the only qualification of "human" IMO. One has to develop into what I think of as being a human.

^^^^ I think I pretty much answered all of your points. Fetus /= Human. I don't agree with the current point of when a fetus is considered a human. It's a point I already covered that I am not going to go back over again.

Quote :

"And if you REALLY feel that way, then you should think about that fact BEFORE you get in the situation of murdering a child."

Unfortunately, some people don't. Again. The goal is the happiness of the child. Banning abortion ignores that goal to uphold a principle to nobody's benefit.

Quote :

"You keep bringing it up as if it's incredibly important, as if it's a major driving point, almost to the point of suggesting that every single child that is aborted is spared a life of poverty, despite any proof that such a thing is the case."

I never suggested such a thing. Again. A strawman. You're insistence that I'm suggesting that every single child that is aborted is spared a life of poverty makes it seem as though you're suggesting that every single child that is aborted is because the mother doesn't want the inconvenience of a child. Now, I've never denied that there are mothers who do abort their children because the child would be an inconvenience. But for you to play ignorant is just your way of avoiding the point. Besides, any mother who views a baby isn't a person who should be raising a child anyway.

Quote :

"People should be able to correct mistakes, but NOT when the correction involves killing an innocent human being. Seems pretty rational to me"

You have yet to convince me that a 1 week old zygote is as human as you or me or even a baby. Outside of DNA, there is really no similarity between me and a 1 week old zygote... At that stage, a monkey has more in common with us than a 1 week old zygote...

But continuing to label a zygote/fetus a "child" and a "baby" and labeling abortion as "murder" does nothing to further your point.

Quote :

"Because we shouldn't be making broad-reaching laws to handle a problem that doesn't fucking exist, maybe? Wow, that was hard!"

You're in favor of making an over-reaching law to fix something you disagree with on a theological level, not me.

Quote :

"no, you fucking evaded it."

Which was???

[Edited on May 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2011 10:49:18 PM

Quote :

"Unfertilized eggs have different DNA from the mother, are they part of her body?"

They half of her DNA that has been scrambled. They are not a person because they dont have 2 copies of each chromosome.

Quote :

"^^^ DNA, to me, isn't the only qualification of "human" IMO. One has to develop into what I think of as being a human."

So lets just throw out science and let you determine what you want a human to be.

Quote :

"Fetus /= Human."

Please explain what it is then; and if its a living thing at all

Quote :

"Outside of DNA, there is really no similarity between me and a 1 week old zygote... "

OUTSIDE OF DNA???? what the hell is left? nothing. DNA determines what you are. Down to every last trait.

Quote :

"ut continuing to label a zygote/fetus a "child" and a "baby" and labeling abortion as "murder" does nothing to further your point."

So you think it just "magically" becomes a baby when it pops out? really?

5/20/2011 11:54:44 PM

Thank god, now that all the Christians have been raptured we can stop arguing about this shit.

5/21/2011 12:04:58 AM

nah, abortion is not a religious issue.

5/21/2011 12:12:16 AM

Quote :

"They are not a person because they dont have 2 copies of each chromosome"

Well this presents two problems.
1. Are people with chromosomal deficiencies people?
2. There are many other qualities besides chromosomes that we might use to define a "person" developed organs, physical disconnection with mother, not being located inside a completely different person etc. why arbitrarily use chromosomes as the defining quality?

5/21/2011 12:25:56 AM

Quote :

"So lets just throw out science and let you determine what you want a human to be. "

My hair has DNA, is it a human?

A 1 week old zygote lacks organs and pretty much any semblance to a human... Being multi-cellular and having human DNA does not make a human, otherwise my appendix is a human, and removing it is murder...

Quote :

"Please explain what it is then; and if its a living thing at all"

The beginning stages of what would eventually become a human.

A pollinated seed of a flower does not immediately make it a flower. It will eventually turn into and grow to be a flower.

Quote :

"OUTSIDE OF DNA???? what the hell is left? nothing. DNA determines what you are. Down to every last trait. "

A developed organism capable of biological independence...

Quote :

"So you think it just "magically" becomes a baby when it pops out? really?"

Where did I say that?

I previously said:

Quote :

"While legally the hard line is birth, but to me, if a fetus has developed to the point that it is realistically possible for it to survive outside of the womb, then a fetus should not be allowed to be aborted."

If you're going to join a conversation midway through, please try to go back and read a few pages.

5/21/2011 1:14:50 AM

Quote :

"A developed organism capable of biological independence..."

Infants are not human then. A lot of children aren't human because they rely on someone to feed them and a lot of their organs have not fully developed yet.

5/21/2011 11:24:29 AM

Quote :

"they rely on someone to feed them"

They rely on ANYONE to feed them, only fetuses rely on a specific person to feed them and also to be located inside of and physically attached to.

5/21/2011 11:38:21 AM

Quote :

"Infants are not human then. A lot of children aren't human because they rely on someone to feed them and a lot of their organs have not fully developed yet."

What I'm talking about is its ability to survive outside of the womb. A 1 week old zygote cannot survive outside of the womb and develop. A 7 month old Fetus can.

5/21/2011 11:40:41 AM

at anybody, on either side, who thinks there's a definitive line to be found here

5/21/2011 12:03:41 PM

Political discussions are nothing if not nuanced.

5/21/2011 12:08:00 PM

Quote :

"They rely on ANYONE to feed them, only fetuses rely on a specific person to feed them and also to be located inside of and physically attached to."

so morning after pill is murder since it takes place before implantation and at the time which the embryo could be moved to another woman.

5/21/2011 3:06:37 PM

I suppose the same could be said of an unfertilized egg, so is menstruation murder?

5/21/2011 3:17:16 PM

Quote :

"What I'm talking about is its ability to survive outside of the womb. A 1 week old zygote cannot survive outside of the womb and develop. A 7 month old Fetus can."

I think you're on the right track--to me at least, there is a clear difference between a week-old zygote and a 7-month old fetus, but I don't think it's because of ability--or lack thereof--to survive outside the womb.

I think that, of all the people arguing against abortion in here, only a few would have a problem with abortion of a week-old zygote. Personally, I think the line should be drawn (minus extenuating circumstances) after a few weeks, and really it should be chemical abortions. By the point at which a surgical abortion is needed, I think that you're at best pushing the limit of when you should be doing it.

5/21/2011 3:45:43 PM

Quote :

"Unfortunately, some people don't."

And we should allow the murder of children because some people don't think about shit before hand? sounds brilliant to me...

Quote :

"I never suggested such a thing."

by bringing it up continuously, it goes to suggest that you are. You've never proffered anything that would show how prevalent this is. It's always "OMG, WE GOTTA KEEP KIDS FROM BEING BORN INTO POVERTY!!!!"

Quote :

"You have yet to convince me that a 1 week old zygote is as human as you or me or even a baby."

you have yet to show that 1 week-old zygotes are the victims of abortion

Quote :

"You're in favor of making an over-reaching law to fix something you disagree with on a theological level, not me. "

where have I EVER mentioned religion in this thread. hasn't happened. I'm making a law to prevent human beings from being murdered. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

5/21/2011 6:10:25 PM

Quote :

"by bringing it up continuously, it goes to suggest that you are. You've never proffered anything that would show how prevalent this is. It's always "OMG, WE GOTTA KEEP KIDS FROM BEING BORN INTO POVERTY!!!!""

So you're admitting that I never said that all children who are aborted are being spared from poverty? Good. Glad you admit your fallacy.

Quote :

"you have yet to show that 1 week-old zygotes are the victims of abortion"

mifepristone + prostaglandin

Good for up to 9 weeks after conception.

It is possible to detect pregnancy as soon as 7 days after missing your period. So yeah, you could very much detect a 1 week-old zygote and have it aborted.

But I know you're just trying to get caught up in semantics because you have no way of dismissing my point outside of semantics...

Quote :

" I'm making a law to prevent human beings from being murdered. Seems pretty reasonable to me."

We already have laws to prevent humans from being murdered. What you're wanting to prevent isn't murder. You just want further government intervention into people's lives because you perceive a fetus/zygote as being equivalent to a fully developed baby.

5/21/2011 7:05:07 PM

aaronburro does love semantics

5/21/2011 7:45:09 PM

Quote :

"So yeah, you could very much detect a 1 week-old zygote and have it aborted."

you could, but you won't.

Quote :

"What you're wanting to prevent isn't murder."

lets see... killing a human being without due process. yep, that's murder!

Quote :

"So you're admitting that I never said that all children who are aborted are being spared from poverty? Good. Glad you admit your fallacy."

so then you will admit that poverty isn't a huge concern and you are just using it as a red herring. got it!

5/23/2011 7:06:51 PM

Quote :

"you could, but you won't."

Says who? You just admitted that you very much could. You made the argument that there should be NO abortions...

Quote :

"lets see... killing a human being without due process. yep, that's murder!"

Round and round we go. Where we stop, nobody knows? You keep affirming that a fetus/zygote is a human, yet I say that it is not... I argue that if a fetus/zygote has not developed to the point of being capable of being independent of its mother that is not truly a human, you simply retort that I'm wrong with no reasoning...

Quote :

"so then you will admit that poverty isn't a huge concern and you are just using it as a red herring. got it!"

Considering that 42% of abortions are done by women who are below the poverty line, I would hardly classify it as not being a "huge concern." Not to mention that you argue that women are getting abortions who see their children as being an inconvenience, yet I argue to that is do you really want to have women who see a baby as being an inconvenience actually have a baby? That goes to my "bad family situation" part of the argument that you seemingly ignore...

5/23/2011 7:25:36 PM

Quote :

"Says who? You just admitted that you very much could. You made the argument that there should be NO abortions..."

no elective abortions.

Quote :

"I argue that if a fetus/zygote has not developed to the point of being capable of being independent of its mother that is not truly a human"

well, an infant isn't completely independent either. let's allow 4th trimester abortions, too!

Quote :

"yet I argue to that is do you really want to have women who see a baby as being an inconvenience actually have a baby?"

no, I want everyone to think about the ramifications of their actions before they act and not resort to the murder of children.

Quote :

"Considering that 42% of abortions are done by women who are below the poverty line, I would hardly classify it as not being a "huge concern.""

heeeeeeeeeey, we've finally got a statistic! so, 1 out of 2 aborted babies are murdered by poor women. now, let's get rid of abortion and get these women some BC and sex ed classes STAT.

5/23/2011 7:31:52 PM

Well if you fucking conservatives weren't so ready to deprive the poor or basic human rights, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion.

5/23/2011 7:50:47 PM