Prolife or Prochoice?

its esquire, they' probably polled people from all all over

Tylerltat wrote:Ok, i again ask, when DOES it deomonstrate "human qualities". a newborn child is incapable of sustaining itself, movement, arguably of showing any emotion other than comfort/discomfort... To not take care of that child is neglegent homicide, but to intentionally kill a locationally dissimilar "entitiy" based on those same traits is justified? I still don't know what you or the oppostion consider 'human'.

Jesus fucking Christ man, I've answered that a dozen times!!! HERE! I'LL QUOTE MY PREVIOUS POSTS FOR YOU. PERHAPS THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU...

ReconToaster wrote: A fertilized egg is certainly, by definition, "human," but there's more to "humanity" than simply belonging to a species.

ReconToaster wrote:...it is not a contributing member of society, or that no other human being is in anyway dependent on it... or that, as it stands, no other human being posses any form of affection toward it. An embryo does not have emotions. It does not think for itself, or interact in any way with the outside world. It lives a solitary existence.

Pro-life advocates often claim that those who support abortion do not understand the value of human life. To the contrary, I think I understand it even better. The value of human life is not derived from our genetic composition.

ReconToaster wrote:The fetus in question does not have emotions, or emotional connections with any other human being on Earth. At early stages, it hardly demonstrates any of what you and I would call "human characteristics."

ReconToaster wrote: Every creature on this earth is "alive," but you do not value it as you value human life. Every creature on this earth is composed of cells, but you do not value it as you value human life. THOSE TRAITS ARE NECESSARY FOR HUMAN LIFE BUT THEY ARE NOT WHAT MAKE HUMAN LIFE UNIQUE AND VALUABLE.

ReconToaster wrote: I don't think it matters when life begins. What matters is when it comes to demonstrate uniquely human characteristics. A fetus which feels no emotions and is not loved by anyone on the outside world, and does not even resemble the human form, isn't what I call human life.

ReconToaster wrote:the jews killed in the holocaust were already living human beings who contributed to society PRIOR TO BEING KILLED. This is what sets me off about PETA members comparing thanksgiving to the holocaust. TURKEYS DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO SOCIETY OR HAVE ANY ADVANCED EMOTIONS.

Finally, since you clearly were not capable of simply reading between the lines, THIS: HERE IS WHERE, JUST FIVE POSTS AWAY FROM THE ONE I'M RESPONDING TO NOW, I SAID THIS:

ReconToaster wrote:Humanity is obtained, at the very least, when a human being is capable of practicing compassion, or is at least an object of compassion. Humanity does not come with physical attributes. And yes, such traits to come with our DNA, but that's not what matters to me. At its time of death, a human fetus does not and never has demonstrated such traits.

So there you have it. At the very least, on top of being a member of the human species, one must, at the very least, either show compassion toward others or HAVE COMPASSION SHOWN UNTO THEM.

In other words, it's wrong to abort a child against a mothers' will because that mother likely has great affection for the child. Once a fetus is out of the womb, it is part of the outside world and, in a sense, part of society, and thus it is even more human.

Recon, the whole thing comes down to a matter of opinion, we are just going in circles on it. I think it should just be dropped.

besides, you can't even abort Fetuses....you can only abort Embryos

kasrkin seath wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:maybe cause you only know 12 yr old girls?

Virtually every female I know is in the 15 - 80 Something range. Not counting family it'd be like 15 - 30.

Where was the poll taken? Different areas of the nation tend to have opposing views on such matters.

From the bottom of the poll itself:

The Survey of the American Woman was taken by 9,617 women on Esquire.com (and other Web sites) between February 4 and March 3, 2010. Since the pool of respondents was limited to Internet-connected adults, the results do not reflect a scientifically random sample of the population. But it's still fun.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/women/women-issue/survey-of-american-women-0510#ixzz0lmmhVAlu

kasrkin seath wrote:Recon, the whole thing comes down to a matter of opinion, we are just going in circles on it. I think it should just be dropped.

The problem is that those who are against it tend to promote banning the practice... in which case it DOES matter.

ReconToaster wrote:

kasrkin seath wrote:Recon, the whole thing comes down to a matter of opinion, we are just going in circles on it. I think it should just be dropped.

The problem is that those who are against it tend to promote banning the practice... in which case it DOES matter.

It's still a point that may never be settled.

Regardless, I dont know if anyone here is that much against it. I would put certain restrictions on it, of course, but not get rid of it entirely.

ReconToaster wrote:

So there you have it. At the very least, on top of being a member of the human species, one must, at the very least, either show compassion toward others or HAVE COMPASSION SHOWN UNTO THEM.

In other words, it's wrong to abort a child against a mothers' will because that mother likely has great affection for the child. Once a fetus is out of the womb, it is part of the outside world and, in a sense, part of society, and thus it is even more human.

Thank you for spelling out to me. I disagree.

Everyone accepts that at least one side of the issue considers this a matter of life or death. In a very small percentage of the cases, the mother's life is somethimes in danger, and no one argues that the mother is a human (unless she is psychotic and/or unloved, apparently). At least one side of the argument, see it as a life or death equation every time, with a 100% mortality rate for the innocent. You can, and have, set forth a criteria which a person needs to meet to be considered a human and therefore accorded their human decency, but until you can back it up with cold hard facts, can show me science that says "this is without a doubt not a human", can give the voiceless the same chance we give the criminal, I can't concede your point. The inability to express the requisite characteristics does not, to me, equate a lack of said qualities.

why is there so much value given to life when life is worthless?

KristallNacht wrote:why is there so much value given to life when life is worthless?

Because we can H4x good.

I'll probably return to the debate tomorrow, but for now, I'd just like to post this, and recommend that you all read through it. It's a very reasonable, well written and rather objective essay on the topic, and it is authored by the late astronomer (and current god,) Carl Sagan.

http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I regard this man to be the greatest to have ever existed in the history of our race.

Lol, obsessive at all?
Regardless, my opinion remains unchanged.

ReconToaster wrote:

kasrkin seath wrote:

KristallNacht wrote:maybe cause you only know 12 yr old girls?

Virtually every female I know is in the 15 - 80 Something range. Not counting family it'd be like 15 - 30.

Where was the poll taken? Different areas of the nation tend to have opposing views on such matters.

From the bottom of the poll itself:

The Survey of the American Woman was taken by 9,617 women on Esquire.com (and other Web sites) between February 4 and March 3, 2010. Since the pool of respondents was limited to Internet-connected adults, the results do not reflect a scientifically random sample of the population. But it's still fun.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/women/women-issue/survey-of-american-women-0510#ixzz0lmmhVAlu

Not only that, but it's Esquire. They tend to cater to a demographic that leans liberal.

KristallNacht wrote:why is there so much value given to life when life is worthless?

Same reason I get angry over your 'contributions' to debates, when you ain't contributing at all.

ReconToaster wrote:http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I regard this man to be the greatest to have ever existed in the history of our race.

You could have Einstein, Beethoven, Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Sagan, and Mother Theresa on your side (Not an abortion debate, but a contest of whose greater).

I win because I have Norman Borlaug. Whom most of you have never heard of, sadly.

Anyhow, I think that article was fascinating, because it sort of reveals a side to the pro-abortion party that people don't really know about.
When Roe VS Wade was decided, a lot of people in the pro-abortion party (I have deliberately decided against using the term 'camp', as it is currently a term commonly used to separate people into us-and-them groups) assumed that that would be it. People would accept the ruling, maybe complain, but there wouldn't be massively organized resistance.
And then I believe that, what the mayor of Chicago found most astounding, the Baptists and the Catholics were actually banding together to oppose this issue. It was frikkin' unheard of.

A sort of bitterness at the opposition rose early in the RvW war, and it still stains some of the politics today. It's done about as much to polarize the left from the right as the abortion clinic bombings.

Anyhow, points on which I disagree with the good Doctor (of Philosophy):
-I applaud him for mentioning the 'slippery slope' of late term abortions, but I still disagree with him on classifying the Sperm cell and the Egg with the Embryo. Only one of them is a potential human: A box of nails and a stack of good lumber is the material needed for a box, and they can be assembled into one, but they need to be brought together first. Gah, bad analogy, but it's late and I got homework.

-While many embryos are spontaneously miscarried, it's not quite the same as abortion, in the same way that a heart attack or a branch falling on you is not the same as homicide.

-Abortion may be used for population control in Africa, India, and China, but what we're most concerned with is abortion in America, which does not exactly need the population control. NPG is doing more than abortion in that respect.

-Although the intent was not, I believe, to infer eugenics, I find his test for intelligence inadequate. Humans exist who are incapable of rational thought, more than the level of an animal. (Famous example: Rush Limbaugh) But our genes contain the information necessary for the hardware for that thought to exist, and that is what I believe makes us human.

So, a rational take on it, just one I don't agree with.

I think that a fetus is somewhat of a parasite. It feeds off of the mother and can't live without her. Until the fetus's belly button cord is cut, it is simply a parasite and must be destoyed if necessary.

KristallNacht wrote:babies in the womb are parasites:

1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

oops. I posted my views on abortioon before reading the previous posts. Anyways, I completly agree with this

czar wrote:I think that a fetus is somewhat of a parasite. It feeds off of the mother and can't live without her. Until the fetus's belly button cord is cut, it is simply a parasite and must be destoyed if necessary.

But arn't we ALL parasites then? We live off the earth. We feed off of the earth. We use the earth. Same with our parents until we are out of the house. We feed off of them. Live off of them. And after we leave the house, we feed off the government. Live off the government...
So to call a baby a parasite is like saying the whole human race is a parasite because I believe from the time the sperm and egg meet at conception, it's a human being.

a parasite to society =/= a physical parasite that literally feeds off of another being



unless you are some hippie.. which I seriously hope you aren't... then Earth isn't a physical being... neither is society


and I personally have never eaten part of my parents to survive since I was born

Were you breast fed? If so, you just ate off your mother. ^^

Maeve wrote:Were you breast fed? If so, you just ate off your mother. ^^

None the less, you don't require breast-feeding to survive. You just need normal food.

I would like to appologize to everyone for my outburst a few days ago. I was really frustrated with school and such and it wasn't needed for me to blow up like that. Again, I am sorry.

Happens to everyone.

Maeve wrote:I would like to appologize to everyone for my outburst a few days ago. I was really frustrated with school and such and it wasn't needed for me to blow up like that. Again, I am sorry.

'Tis fine. Just remember that nothing said here, especially in the Debate Section, is really meant.