Troll a sincere prolifer.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I've clearly articulated science as the justification for my points and not religion.

No, you most certainly have not.
You described the process of how the sperm meets the egg, etc -- but you don't ever draw any conclusions or provide any evidence of why this is a person.

All evidence shown (scientific, even) points to the zygote being just as dependent upon the host as the sperm is to the egg, and therefore if we consider the zygote to be human, the sperm and egg must be human. And if the sperm and egg are human, masturbation and contraceptives must be banned at once. This is your logic, but you've set up arbitrary borders and boundaries and somehow don't seem able to see through the entire thinking of your logic. Sperm, egg, and zygote are all very primitive forms of life, and all contain genetic information, and if you call one of them a person, you must call them all a person.

Still ad hominem.

No, it's not. I suggest you look up what ad hominem is.

Unless you equate yourself to your religion and your religion has absolutely nothing to do with this argument (which is so clearly does, but you don't want to adddmmiiiit it ), it was not an ad hominem.

[Spiffor]

Elok, that reads :

Originally posted by Elok

Anyway, a facsist acorn that has begun to germinate in the ground becomes a nazi oak tree, whereas a fascist acorn in one's hand is more comparable to a harmless reactionary sperm cell or egg. When the seed of evil is planted and begins to sprout underground, it sets a chain of events into motion that will end either with the destruction of the organism by chance or malice, or in the organism becoming a full-grown nazi oak. There are no other possibilities. It will happen. Jewish Human beings are comparable. Abortion is one of the very few black-and-white issues, clouded only by cowardly euphemism and selfish Gypsy pity-grabs. The continued existence of controversy over the issue is one of the big contributing factors in my waning faith in this gaydemocracy.

Keep with the topic dammit

[Ben Kenobi]

dejon:

It comes down to respect. Regardless of your scientific debate, you cannot respect a free will that is either does not exist yet, or if it does - cannot speak for itself.

Combine this with:

If you skim history, you will find that regardless of their arguments, history does not favour those that disrespect others. And where there has been a constant disrepect, you will usually also not only bitter resentent, but outright hatred as well.

I speak for those without a voice. Just because they cannot defend themselves, does not render them less then persons. Looking at history, we see the abolitionists arguing that the black man is a person, as white men speaking for those without a voice in the political environment of the time.

Indeed, history does not favour those who disrespect others. The same is no different for those who disrespect the unborn child.

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by Ramo

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, but no, I don't think that those who are brain-dead should have the legal rights of a "person."

But if they are brain dead the you pose the quandry that they already exsist. I would assume that you speak of a person who for what ever reason has gone brain dead. The if that's the case.....they are already here should they not have rights? Unless I misunderstood your statement.

My pro-choice sentence comes directly from a social point of view. To me, giving birth to an unwanted child is the best way to turn the mother's and the child's life into a nightmare, the best way to create more suffering.

Quite right. Unless you have the wherewithall education job prospects etc. then the job of raising the child falls on society and the grandparents. I'm in the process of experiencing this now. My 17 year old daughter has gotten herself pregnant. The 26 year old guy that's responsible (and I use that term very lightly) we just found out is married and wants nothing to do with her or the child. This is a child herself, however, now she will be rasing this child because she won't let it be adopted nor does she agree with abortion. She is 17 never held a job, didn't graduate high school and is getting herself on Section 8, food stamps etc. So society gets to pay for this child (whatever tab my husband and I don't pick up) and this child stands no chance whatsoever to make it.

There are times when bringing a child into the world is one of the more selfish acts you can do especially in this situation. It only breeds more heartache.

What about adoption? If the mother does not want to take care of the child, why not give her to someone who does want to take care of her.

This is a viable option for many people. People need to understand that an adopted child is ALWAYS wanted. I was adopted at 4 days old and my parents were great and I always felt wanted. The children of heartache aren't so lucky.

I am no fan of abortion, because it is a dreadful experience for the mother, except for a very tiny minority of *****es who just don't care.

You have no idea the magnatude that it weighs on people.

So abortion causes pain and suffering? Why then approve of a medical procedure that harms women?

Because for some it's the only option they have.

No, your anecdote merely provokes sorrow, for the mother, and for her child.

More for the mother. Having an abortion has far reaching consequences they you have no idea about at the time but they can and will surface after years have gone by. And your still left with the question of did I do the right thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unless you equate yourself to your religion and your religion has absolutely nothing to do with this argument (which is so clearly does, but you don't want to adddmmiiiit it ),

You want my motivations? I want to save some babies from dying. Last I checked, you don't have to be religious to stand up for those who cannot defend themselves.

Tiamat:

and this child stands no chance whatsoever to make it.

Do you have a crystal ball, Tiamat?

Because for some it's the only option they have.

Then it's hardly a 'choice' but an obligation. Let's give women more options rather than less.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Tiamat
You have no idea the magnatude that it weighs on people.

I think I'm beginning to have an idea, even if I know I'll never know this pain (and gladly so). Abortion is something I'm very sensitive to, on the pro-choice side, and my friends who have experienced it, have talked to me about it quite extensively

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Then it's hardly a 'choice' but an obligation. Let's give women more options rather than less.

This is a firm yes-yes. You're pro-choice too, after all

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by obiwan18
I speak for those without a voice. Just because they cannot defend themselves, does not render them less then persons. Looking at history, we see the abolitionists arguing that the black man is a person, as white men speaking for those without a voice in the political environment of the time.

Indeed, history does not favour those who disrespect others. The same is no different for those who disrespect the unborn child.

Nice counterpoint, now we're getting somewhere.

So you believe that your representative voice, to which you assign an arbitrary opinion (which just happens to align with your own ), supercedes the voice of the woman, who speaks for herself, and whose opinion can be known first hand? Doesn't that seem a little self-serving?

[Buck Birdseed]

Moved from other thread: Surely the essential prolife position is "let's keep women down, let's preserve traditional 'values', let's bolster the oppressive, patriarchal system". If the abortion debate was actually about anything other than power politics, it wouldn't be so cleanly divided left-right.

[Asher]

Originally posted by obiwan18
You want my motivations? I want to save some babies from dying. Last I checked, you don't have to be religious to stand up for those who cannot defend themselves.

I'm not saying religion is behind your motivations, just behind your rational.

See, even here you don't seem to comprehend what I'm saying. You keep equating zygote == babies constantly, and avoiding the issues that tear apart your "logic" for insisting zygote == babies, and reply with something like "but I want to save babies from dying!" instead.

If the sperm, egg, and zygote are all primitive forms of life and all contain genetic information, why do you only consider the zygote to be a "baby"?

The zygote is simply a cell! Hell, at least a sperm swims...

[Buck Birdseed]

There's no such thing as a sincere pro-lifer. You're all hypocritical, openly evil bastards.

[Tiamat]

Do you have a crystal ball, Tiamat?

No crystal ball I just know where she came from and I know the life she is living now and the "thug" mentality she is trying to live and in that situation no, the baby stands no chance. She is already asking us to by her maternity close etc...If you can't afford to have the baby and want to birth it then give to someone who can and will provide it with a two parent home and financial stability. If not a two parent home at least financial stability so the child doesn't go hungry. This is not something my girls know nothing about. They know what it takes to raise kids and to be from a single parent home with a mother that works two jobs just to keep the lights on. I have a college degree and still needed two jobs to raise my kids. My daughter has 2 credits from High School. Realisticaly with no education, no work expeierence how are you going to pay the bills and raise a child?

Then it's hardly a 'choice' but an obligation. Let's give women more options rather than less.

I agree with you. Offer women more options. It's a very lonely world out there to be young or old and pregnant with a child that no one really wants and you have so many decisions to make. There really does need to be more options then three. Birth, adoption or abortion. That's all we have now.

[Ben Kenobi]

dejon:

supercedes the voice of the woman,

Good point. Now I have to show why the unborn child's right to life does not supercede the woman's right to life, but only her right to liberty.

I agree with abortion in the case where the mother's life is in danger, most typically found in ectopic pregnancies. In this case, it is better for one life to perish rather than two, since a neglected ectopic pregnancy will rupture the mother's fallopian tubes, killing both the mother and child.

This is why my position does not enforce the child's right to life over the mother's right to life, but only over her right to liberty. No one is justified to kill a person, just because they are an inconvenience.

Asher:

The zygote is simply a cell!

And your body is a much larger collection of cells. More complicated by the essence is the same.

Buck Birdseed:

"let's keep women down, let's preserve traditional 'values', let's bolster the oppressive, patriarchal system". If the abortion debate was actually about anything other than power politics, it wouldn't be so cleanly divided left-right.

Actually, I believe women should be allowed to work outside the home, earn as much or more than her SO.
Hardly 'traditional' values.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Moved from other thread: Surely the essential prolife position is "let's keep women down, let's preserve traditional 'values', let's bolster the oppressive, patriarchal system". If the abortion debate was actually about anything other than power politics, it wouldn't be so cleanly divided left-right.

there appears to be that devide because so many of the groups on the left don't consider you left if you are anti-abortion

I am pro gay marriage

I am pro women's rights to work, marry who they choose, ect ect ect

I am pro a communist state

I am pro the state providing for all needs

I am anti-abortion

and mostly because of that last bit, many would not consider me left

Jon Miller
hell, even when I didn't beleive in families and thought that everyone should leve together in group homes I still was anti-abortion

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Tiamat




I agree with you. Offer women more options. It's a very lonely world out there to be young or old and pregnant with a child that no one really wants and you have so many decisions to make. There really does need to be more options then three. Birth, adoption or abortion. That's all we have now.

abortion should nto be an option

if you don't want the kid, put it up for adoption (there is a huge waiting list for non-drug babies to be adopted)

if there is any other option that should be allowed, it would be some state run one
(actually there probably should be such an option)

Jon Miller