I am pro-choice, but I don't understand why people are getting so angry.
I believe that if you don't like abortion, you can just opt not to have one. Don't force your beliefs on this issue onto others. Some people believe a fetus is a person, I do not. As long as there is this gray area, don't prevent people from having abortions. Just ignore it. It is part of their right to privacy, and you can't revoke that.

segajon said: NinjaguyDan said: ^ Do you support the invasion of Iraq? Not at all. I am against war and I am against abortion. That will never change about me.

 Cool

[edit: Post corrected for blindness.]

elprincipe said: Final-Fan said: elprincipe said: Final-Fan said: [edit: Looking back, it seems that elprincipe has no problem killing fertilized eggs as long as they haven't been "implanted". Why the distinction, elprincipe?] Easy, many eggs are fertilized and never implanted in the female and start to grow. I don't mourn these as lost lives because they never began life as a person; they were merely fertilized eggs. Once a fertilized egg is implanted in the female and begins to grow on its own, that is a separate, distinct, unique person and not just the two building blocks of a person together. OK, but [edit: never mind this part, you never said what I'm arguing against. I'll leave it in though.] what does the survival rate of the fertilized eggs have to do with anything? Back in the middle ages when infant mortality rates were just ridiculous would it be OK to have abortion? (I seem to recall that way back when they didn't even name infants in many cultures until a certain age, presumably because so many died soon after birth. I could be wrong though.) Why does successful implantation into the female make the fertilized egg MORE separate, distinct, and unique? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Cell division begins to occur immediately; the growth is already underway. Why is a blastocyst human after successfully burrowing into the uterus and not before? Repeat: Growth begins BEFORE implantation. Simple, because before that happens there is a good chance that the cells will die naturally. Once what you've described happens, at some point the cells become a human being, no? If that is true, at what point? What other logical point is there, except the point we are talking about? Babies develop at different rates, so you can't say after X weeks of development. I suppose you could argue after heartbeats or brainwaves start, but these are semantics; children's brainwaves are different than adults, their bodies are different, yet they are human beings just as much as an adult, so I don't see how smaller children are somehow in a different category.

OK, now I guess I have to reinstate the part I took out:

What does the survival rate of the fertilized eggs have to do with anything? Back in the middle ages when infant mortality rates were just ridiculous would it be OK to have abortion? (I seem to recall that way back when they didn't even name infants in many cultures until a certain age, presumably because so many died soon after birth. I could be wrong though.)

As far as I can tell you've abandoned the idea that implantation actually is some kind of starting point and gone to, "well, it's just a good spot to pick." You seem to be admitting that at some point the developing tissue develops to the point that it is now considered a child, which is very different from what you have argued up until now. Are we now indeed down to arguing over the proper stage in development that that occurs? I want to make sure before I spend a few paragraphs on the brainwaves thing. (It's NOT semantics.)

NinjaguyDan said: How many people who claim to be "pro-life" have no problem bombing innocent women and children to death, then, with an almost evil indifference, let the survivors suffer in squalor without basic services or medical care. I would wager that they are the same idiots who think they can purchase salvation from a televangelist

Nice blast not at all stereotyping! or how about kill a baby save a whale! that works too! same people who love peta are pro abortion! Thats nice in theory and sounds good but idiots are idiots now matter what back ground or beliefs they are programmed with. People who who look at facts and come to thier own conclusion based on conviction and reason what everside they land on if they look at it and make up thier mind thats thier choice Like I said there are stupid people on both sides of the fence and intelligent people too who disagree! I personally feel People today lack personal responsiblity abortion is a birth control issue accidental pregnancy BS. Rape and Incest makeup about 3% of all abortions the rest are just lazy irresponsible people who let the government pay for their abortion! Use a condom get on birth control I have 3 kids you have to plan to get pregnant theres a small window of firtility a month and if your having unprotected sex your an idiot in this day and age! It goes to show you the more education and money you spend doesnt fix the problem! its a morality and responsility issue! Last point how many women try and get pregnant to land a husband only to find out he's only in it for the quick hit oh well get an abortion!Like I said I feel for rape and incest victims I dont now how women who get pregnant like this dont get an abortion. ut Ive known several who have kept the child and have raised them and they are great kids! I would say Iam anti stupid and in this day and age when every high school hands out condoms for free use them or take responsiblity. My Dad told me when I was a young man you get a girl pregnant your marrying her. thats was scary!Young  men need fathers that will tell them to do good to do right to be caring and noble! And be responsible!

elprincipe said: NinjaguyDan said: How many people who claim to be "pro-life" have no problem bombing innocent women and children to death, then, with an almost evil indifference, let the survivors suffer in squalor without basic services or medical care. I would wager that they are the same idiots who think they can purchase salvation from a televangelist Stereotype alert! How many of those who claim to be "pro-choice" have no problem taking away our choices in everything from medical care to what kind of toilet to use? I would wager they are the same idiots who zealously read and believed Paul R. Ehrlich's work.

Well, as much as I oppose the kind of attack tactics NinjaguyDan used, your counterattack was even more off-base.  At least the primary issue NgD brought up had some relevance to the "defense of life", whereas you ... seriously, toilets?

Anyway, the best thing to do when someone intrudes on a serious debate with those kinds of flamebait tactics is to ignore him or chastise him, not respond with equally trollish behavior. 

elprincipe said: NinjaguyDan said: How many people who claim to be "pro-life" have no problem bombing innocent women and children to death, then, with an almost evil indifference, let the survivors suffer in squalor without basic services or medical care. I would wager that they are the same idiots who think they can purchase salvation from a televangelist Stereotype alert! How many of those who claim to be "pro-choice" have no problem taking away our choices in everything from medical care to what kind of toilet to use? I would wager they are the same idiots who zealously read and believed Paul R. Ehrlich's work.

 You have a choice when it comes to health care?  Wow, you're one of the few.  Typically, from my experience (being a leukemia survivor I have a LOT) the INSURANCE COMPANIES call all of the shots, from the doctor you see to the treatments you receive.  I had to go round-and-round with an insurance company for my bone marrow transplant, they wouldn't approve it at first but they finally relented, it was an aggravating few weeks. (NOT what I needed in that condition)

I no longer have insurance, they dropped me (of course) and because I have a pre-existing condition my only choice for medical care involves going hopelessly into debt.  (that's part of the reason I think republicans suck)

 

@Final-Fan
My point was either you're pro-all-life or you're not, you can't pick and choose.
It wasn't intended as a troll, I absolutely hate hypocrisy.

Ps yes I supported taking Saddam Out We put him in power We gave him his weapons of mass destruction to use against the Iranians we used our Awac to tell him where to use those weapons against Iranian troop movements!He was our monster just like osama was our guy against the russians! Saddam's son's would rape young shehite girls kill them and feed them to thier dogs! Those guys needed to die! Will shehites and sunni's ever get along probably .Does the U.S. military need to be the worlds police force NO. Should we get out of Iraq and let them work it out on thier own I belive so! Your problem is thinking it was better under Saddam and that those same woman and children whose fathers Saddam butchered were happier before 15% Sunni's running 85% Shehites be fear and terrorism! Yet my Iranian brother inlaw believes that maybe was the only way to control a country like that! They will never appreciate freedom they didnt earn it they will never go to the Polls and vote like republicans and democrats and abide by the outcome! If they do then maybe it will be worth it! You sound as though most of the killing over there started with US it has been going on for over 500 years! Still I dont think it should have cost us 1 american soldier to earn thier freedom if it wasnt for our past mistakes in the first place! We really do pay for the sins of our fathers!

Um, just a repeat:

IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE IRAQ WAR, MAKE ANOTHER THREAD TO DO IT IN. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT.

sorry for shouting.

elprincipe said: Rath said: @Crono. Not everything is fucking defined alright? No there is not always such a thing as right or wrong. Is killing an orphan to save a hundred others right? Is sacrificing an army of thousands to save a nation right? Not everything is in a clear section of 'correct' or 'incorrect' just like not everything is 'frog' or 'tadpole' or like everything is 'fetus' or 'person'. Many things are progressive, not sudden. A tadpole slowly changes into a frog just like a fetus slowly changes into a human, somewhere along the line you can say 'alright lets stop doing abortions here' but thats not saying that what you are refusing to abort is completely human, merely human enough. You cannot say that a fetus at conception is a human because it clearly isn't. It in no way whatsoever resembles a person. It cannot think, move, breathe, eat, it cannot do anything. In the same way you cannot say that a baby 9 months into a pregnancy isn't as it so clearly is, it has the ability to eat breathe think move. You are treating humanity as something which comes suddenly and as such the only logical points are at either end but humanity isn't, thats where you are going so badly wrong. Is someone with brain damage not a person? They cannot think. Is someone who is paralyzed not a person? They cannot move. Is someone who must be fed intravenously not a person? They cannot eat. Why do these things define humanity?

A person which is brain dead and paralyzed is not a person. They are a corpse to be honest.