By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Gallup: More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

Rath said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

No, anti-abortion is direct control over the mother's body and what she can do with it. It would be the same as me going over the bathoom and masturbating and getting thrown in jail over it.

 

 

"You would agree that the government would have all the rights in the world to protect a fetus provided it is a human being, correct"?  It is the anti-abortionists position that the fetus is a human, so they are not advocating that the government have direct control of the women's body.  Again, would you consider it an encroachment of a person's rights if the government prevented a person from killing their six year old child?  Of course not.  Why?  Because you consider the six year old a human, and thus it has it's own rights.  And the anti-abortionists considers the fetus to be human, and thus think it has its own rights.  So, they do not advocate the idea that the government can tell you what do with your own body. 

 

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

 

So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people?  Reminds me of slavery.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
Around the Network
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

Yes, however that fetus is inside of the woman and therefore you control her body and tell her what she does and doesn't. If you so want that fetus, get it out of her and support it elsewhere, but she has to have the option of not having it in her, plain and simple.

 

And to draw a comparison:

6-year-old: has legs, talks or makes sounds, comprehends surroundings, acts on stimuli based on something other than instinct, has a working brain with a measureable brainwave, conscious, has chromosomes, etc.

early fetus: clump of cells, no mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no sounds whatsoever, poentially turns into said 6-year-old.

sperm: clump of cells, has chromosomes, mobility, no brain, no consciousness, reacts based on instinct, no speech or sounds, potentially turns into a 6-year-old.

"Yes, however that fetus is inside of the woman and therefore you control her body and tell her what she does and doesn't. If you so want that fetus, get it out of her and support it elsewhere, but she has to have the option of not having it in her, plain and simple".

 Even if the fetus is fully human?  If so, that's the equivalent of saying countries have the right to execute their citizens whenever they want because they live in their country.

Anyways, to add to that comparison:

Fully grown dog: has legs, talks or makes sounds, comprehends surroundings, acts on stimuli based on something other than instinct, has a working brain with a measureable brainwave, conscious, has chromosomes, etc.

Yet, I don't consider it human.

Actually a human and a dog are the exact same thing. Humans are animals, only diferencec is that while others evovled into being stronger, faster, or more agile, we evolved ability to think. That doesn't erase the simple fact we're no better than a dog in the grand scheme of things. At the same time, a fetus of a dog is also BARELY different than the fetus of a human, in fact up till a few weeks, it's just the same clump of cells as a human's early fetus with just a few different acids in their DNA, yet you don't consider them the same? For the recod the fetus of a dog is not a dog either.

So... force a person to do something and potentially ruin their lives for something that may or may not be human? No, I don't see anything wrong with this at all actually. It's the mother that gives life, if she doesn't want to she doesn't want to. Who the fuck are we to tell her what to do?

 

"A human and a dog are the exact same thing". "[Humans]...evolved ability to think"  That right there is a rather large difference.  Would you give a dog all the rights a human has?  Of course not.  You don't consider dogs and humans to be the same.

"So... force a person to do something and potentially ruin their lives for something that may or may not be human"?

So, you'd rather run the risk of killing a human being than run the risk of "ruining" some person's life?  That sounds very wrong to me.

And, we tell people all the time what they can't do with their children.

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

No, anti-abortion is direct control over the mother's body and what she can do with it. It would be the same as me going over the bathoom and masturbating and getting thrown in jail over it.

 

 

"You would agree that the government would have all the rights in the world to protect a fetus provided it is a human being, correct"?  It is the anti-abortionists position that the fetus is a human, so they are not advocating that the government have direct control of the women's body.  Again, would you consider it an encroachment of a person's rights if the government prevented a person from killing their six year old child?  Of course not.  Why?  Because you consider the six year old a human, and thus it has it's own rights.  And the anti-abortionists considers the fetus to be human, and thus think it has its own rights.  So, they do not advocate the idea that the government can tell you what do with your own body. 

 

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

 

So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people?  Reminds me of slavery.

 

Sounds like a fail attempt at an analogy. The white population's lives were never even at the tinies risk of being ruined by blacks being freed.

 



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
appolose said:
Rath said:

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

 

So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people?  Reminds me of slavery.

 

Sounds like a fail attempt at an analogy. The white population's lives were never even at the tinies risk of being ruined by blacks being freed.

 

Your criticizing the example, not the analogy.  And if the white's were at some risk of having their lives ruined by the black's freedom, would that have justified the slavery (not that I would consider most (if any) people live's would be ruined by their baby, when they could just give it up for adoption in the most extreme cases)?

 



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose said:
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
Rath said:

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

 

So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people?  Reminds me of slavery.

 

Sounds like a fail attempt at an analogy. The white population's lives were never even at the tinies risk of being ruined by blacks being freed.

 

Your criticizing the example, not the analogy.  And if the white's were at some risk of having their lives ruined by the black's freedom, would that have justified the slavery (not that I would consider most (if any) people live's would be ruined by their baby, when they could just give it up for adoption in the most extreme cases)?

 

Yes, if it's proven they would harm disasterously the life of the others. More problems in your example. Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion. Your example is just bad through and through.

Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

Around the Network

I love how the pro choice people here are questioning when human life begins. If you don't know how can you take the risk of aborting a fetus if it could be hman life, you guys make no sense to me.

I by the way am pro life and believe life begins at conception.



segajon said:
I love how the pro choice people here are questioning when human life begins. If you don't know how can you take the risk of aborting a fetus if it could be hman life, you guys make no sense to me.

I by the way am pro life and believe life begins at conception.

 

As I stated earlier, ther sperm when you masturbate is just as potentially human as your fertalized eggs in the beginning, so let's ban that as well I say!

While at it let's ban sex without a permit althogether so we can stop this retarded argument already and the fact that MAYBE a woman may miscarry. While at it let's keep everyone in their house and drug them, that way they won't go homocidal and kill others as well. In fact let's just put everyone into a coma and have only a select few do the reproducing for us, to ensure thare are gray areas or murders or anything, in case people get confused on what's murder and what's not. You never know.

As I have stated earlier, you probably aren't even remotely close to being pro-life, so stop labeling yourself as such.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

Sounds like a fail attempt at an analogy. The white population's lives were never even at the tinies risk of being ruined by blacks being freed.

 

Your criticizing the example, not the analogy.  And if the white's were at some risk of having their lives ruined by the black's freedom, would that have justified the slavery (not that I would consider most (if any) people live's would be ruined by their baby, when they could just give it up for adoption in the most extreme cases)?

 

Yes, if it's proven they would harm disasterously the life of the others. More problems in your example. Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion. Your example is just bad through and through.

Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human.

So, you're allowed to ruin or end the life of one person if it makes another person's life better?

 "Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion".  What does this have to do with anything?  Rath and I were discussing the groups that support and oppose abortion, which, according to this Gallup poll, are about half-and-half.

"Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human".

I'll assume this in respose to my other post.  I'm not really sure what it is you mean in your second sentence.  Do you mean  differentiate itself from the fetus of a dog or cat?  If so, there's a huge genetic difference, so that's one way already.

Alas! I must be off to work, so I won't be responding for a while.



Okami

To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made.  I won't open my unworthy mouth.

Christian (+50).  Arminian(+20). AG adherent(+20). YEC(+20). Pre-tribulation Pre-milleniumist (+10).  Republican (+15) Capitalist (+15).  Pro-Nintendo (+5).  Misc. stances (+30).  TOTAL SCORE: 195
  http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=43870 <---- Fun theology quiz
appolose said:
vlad321 said:
appolose said:
vlad321 said:

Sounds like a fail attempt at an analogy. The white population's lives were never even at the tinies risk of being ruined by blacks being freed.

 

Your criticizing the example, not the analogy.  And if the white's were at some risk of having their lives ruined by the black's freedom, would that have justified the slavery (not that I would consider most (if any) people live's would be ruined by their baby, when they could just give it up for adoption in the most extreme cases)?

 

Yes, if it's proven they would harm disasterously the life of the others. More problems in your example. Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion. Your example is just bad through and through.

Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human.

So, you're allowed to ruin or end the life of one person if it makes another person's life better?

 "Half of the population? Half the population is women yes but not everyone will get pregnant, and even less will have an abortion".  What does this have to do with anything?  Rath and I were discussing the groups that support and oppose abortion, which, according to this Gallup poll, are about half-and-half.

"Again you are equating a fetus to a born human. HUGE difference between the two there. Until a fetus does something to differentiate itself from that of a dog or a cat or another mammal in general, then it's not human".

I'll assume this in respose to my other post.  I'm not really sure what it is you mean in your second sentence.  Do you mean  differentiate itself from the fetus of a dog or cat?  If so, there's a huge genetic difference, so that's one way already.

Alas! I must be off to work, so I won't be responding for a while.

 

DNA is a blueprint, nothing more. It's like saying that 2 buildings are different when all they have laid down is the ditch for the foundations. However at that point they are obviosuly different because the blueprint is different? I call bullshit on that.

Furthermore the fetus is a parasite, and correct me if I'm arong but a normal human isn't. A human doesn't depend on anyone else to live and be well. They depend on food and water and that's it. Before they are sustainable outside the mother the fetus is not human, it's a parasite.

Since you are so much for its rights, does that mean that you will oulaw pregnant drinking? Or smoking? Or eating unhealthily? Or doing heavy exercise? Or anything that will cause her to miscarry or damage the fetus? How the fuck is that not controlling one's body? You just basically made her a slave to that fetus, legally. F that.

If she wants that parasite out of her she should be able to remove it, if you want to save it, go ahead and find a way to keep it alive and going, as long as it's no longer in her. I don't care how you do it, implant in another mother, machines, or not at all.



Tag(thx fkusumot) - "Yet again I completely fail to see your point..."

HD vs Wii, PC vs HD: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=93374

Why Regenerating Health is a crap game mechanic: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=3986420

gamrReview's broken review scores: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=4170835

 

appolose said:
Rath said:

And what makes the anti-abortionists right? Nothing. Not that the pro-abortionists are right either.

In this debate nobody is right because there is no universal definition of life, its generally agreed that by the time a baby is born it is human and that before it is conceived it is not, in between is a slightly grey area. Now what gives the anti-abortionists the right to push their views of when life begins on an extremely large segment of the population who believe differently?

 

So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people?  Reminds me of slavery.

 

They are very different situations.

All different kinds of people, negroes, caucasians, orientals or aboriginals, display self awareness, consciousness, the ability to feel pain, emotions and many other things that foetuses simply don't. The problem is that there is a lack of agreement on when people become people. I personally take the point of where they gain the ability (or at least the necessary pieces to have the ability) to feel pain, as it is the first of the things that I consider to make up a person that develops.