Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

You are dreaming if you think we live in an equal society.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Originally posted by worlds_away
As I've already explained to you, some men do have a say.

I'm sorry if you didn't.

Can you explain to me what you mean by "a say?"

The choice to abort or not is the unilateral choice of a woman.

It doesn't matter how much you talk about it or how much you agree with the decision that SHE is making... she is the one who makes the choice. "My body, my choice..." remember that?

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by worlds_away
As I've already explained to you, some men do have a say.

I'm sorry if you didn't.

Can you explain to me what you mean by "a say?"

The question to abort or not is the unilateral choice of a woman, it doesn't matter how much you talk about it or how much you agree with what decision SHE should make... she is the one who makes the decision. "My body, my choice..." remember that?

Star for you.

reply to post by SevenBeans


I have allowed my boyfriend a say on whether or not we have an abortion. If I didn't like what he said, I could leave him.

WE have decided on having sex, and WE have decided how WE would deal with an abortion. WE

Not me alone. Please don't tell me that ALL men have NO say.

He'd have no say if I allowed him no say.



I'm not trying to say he has a legal say in the matter, but a moral say, damned right he does.

If I had an abortion when we've decided not to have one then yes, moral questions all around.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

You are dreaming if you think we live in an equal society.

Thanks for saying that... I would have had to over explain that...

Originally posted by worlds_away
WE have decided on having sex, and WE have decided how WE would deal with an abortion.

Not me alone. Please don't tell me that ALL men have NO say.

And if you change your mind than he's screwed.

It's your unilateral choice.

Very simple.

reply to post by SevenBeans


I'm guessing that in that case not only is he screwed, but OUR relationship as well.

reply to post by MindSpin


Here's a fact:

A human being is a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child. We'll take it a bit further that biologically, a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty.

reply to post by grahag

Because Wikipedia isn't credible? I can find this information in other locations, but I find Wikipedia to be the most convenient because it's all in one place. I suppose I can refer you to some books and you can just physically look it up.

Wikipedia can be a 100% credible source...or it can be complete crap.

If you want to use wikipedia as a credible source...they provide links to sources for all credible and verifable information. Click the little link for the source...and link that instead. I really shouldn't have to coach you through this.

*sigh* Having to explain the definition of everything you're using in your own argument is getting old, and I consider myself to be fairly patient.
Self-Sustaining means that you are able to provide for your own needs without help from others. Up to a certain point, a fetus is NOT self sustaining. They can NOT survive without the mother's biological functions. We're not talking about infants, we're talking about fetuses.

Way to dodge the questions.

You are using self-sustaining as your criteria....infants face the same issues of not being able to self-sustain...I'm asking you if that makes them non-human as well???

It's a very simple question...and uses your exact criteria.

The other question you completely dodged is: Are fetuses dead or are the inanimate? Because that is what your own source claimed non-life is.

Try not to dodge....there are TWO questions here...I expect TWO answers.

In almost every case, someone will provide for that infant. The same cannot be said of a fetus because it's not viable.

Your definition doesn't say "other dependent"...it says "self sustaining". Try not to distort the definitions from your own sources.

But let's take what you said to it's conclusion. "In almost every case"...true...which means there are some cases where someone else DOESN'T provide for the infant. The infant will die...did a "human" just die...or was it "non-human" because it couldn't self-sustain???

Another question I have to ask you...does abortion stop the biological process of life of the fetus???

I'm not doubting that it's alive.

Well that is good...then it appears we are in agreement...right? The human fetus is ALIVE...correct? If an abortion is performed...the fetus DIES...correct???

So what's our disagreement?

By your definition, sperm, eggs, appendixes, skin, and everything else should be defended with the same veracity as a fetus.

And it is. It is illegal for any other human (including my mother) to harm or kill my sperm, appendix, skin and any other part of my body. There is no conflict here.

But it's not a human being until it's born.

So you are ok with abortions up until birth??? That is disgusting even for most pro-choice folks.

I go by the legal criteria because it uses common sense. Brain functions show that there is some sentience around 20-22 weeks, which is where most abortions are made illegal.

Do you ever challenge a legal definition??? Do you think we should just lie down and never challenge what others have deemed "legal" or "illegal"???

Can you explain to me why you think the arbitrary bodily function of brain waves is the best definition for the beginning of "life"???

This definition is not a hard definition because it can't be....you have a window of 20-22 weeks. We absolutely know that not all fetuses develop at the same rate. What of those babies that develop brain waves at 19 weeks? Hell...what of the baby that develops brain waves at 21 weeks and is aborted at 22 weeks? Do they check for brain waves before they perfom an abortion???

We also know that our machines which can detect brain waves aren't sensative enough to detect the weakest of brain waves...so do we really ever know when the "first" brain waves are detected?

Seems like a slippery slope to me.

But if this is your absolute position...then don't you agree that at the very very least...more regulations should be put in place so someone doesn't abort a "sentient" baby with brian waves???

You're exhausting to talk to. I just wanted to let you know that. It requires a lot of forethought to post something and I have to explain everything as if you were a child.

You should always speak clearly and explain what you mean. You can call me a child, that is fine...what you really mean is that you have to be careful not to contradict yourself...which you have many many times...because you know I will call you out on those contradictions.

It's certainly not entertaining, which I find most debates to be, just because I assume that we're on the same level of understanding about the facts.

I'm enjoying it...I love a good debate

The only reason I go any further is to help explain what those facts are in the hopes that you'll understand better what this debate is really about.

But you are continuing to create contradictions for yourself...which is why you have to continue to re-define what you meant or what you think.

At least you admitted in this post that you agree that the fetus is alive...that is a good first step.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

As I've already explained to you, some men do have a say.

I'm sorry if you didn't.

You are failing to acknowledge that the really don't have any legal say. You can keep saying they do...but the final decision is all up to the women. Nothing the man can do can stop her...she can legally kill his child.

Do you think that is false?


No need to be sorry, I luckily never had to be in that position. Doesn't mean others haven't been...and I sympathize with them.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

I'm guessing that in that case not only is he screwed, but OUR relationship as well.

Yes...if my girlfriend killed my child...I would say the relationship is over.


In fact...if I knew my girlfreind killed her own child previously...the relationship is over. Why would I want to date someone who kills their own child???

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by igor_ats

 

What nature does and what man does are different. You cannot bring nature to a court when a tree hits someone. You can when someone drops a tree on you.

We already put money and resources to prevent natural deaths. . . why are pro-lifers shirking their responsibility? Aren't they the ones claiming personhood from conception?

Unless they don't really believe in personhood from cenception of course.

reply to post by MindSpin


I do not believe that a man should have a legal say.

I do believe that a woman should consider his feelings on the matter and if they are not compatible they forgoe the relationship. I obviously cannot legislate that people in relationships act responsibly, and have these conversations. But like you said, sometimes it is worth dreaming...

I'm sorry, this isn't a debate. I can't continue any longer. I've explained my position multiple times and as simplistic terms as I'm able.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I do not believe that a man should have a legal say.

Why not...do you not believe that the child is part of the father?

Originally posted by grahag
I'm sorry, this isn't a debate. I can't continue any longer. I've explained my position multiple times and as simplistic terms as I'm able.

And another one runs away without answering ANY of my questions.


I understand...if you answer my questions...your positions becomes indefensible.


I would hope some could show a little honesty instead of just claiming victory and running away.


If you would like...we could go to the formal debate forum to have this conversation. I've asked others as well...no takers yet.

reply to post by MindSpin


If that's the way you feel then that's how you feel. I can't change that.

I hope you found someone compatible.

reply to post by MindSpin


Because in the history of sex, with exceptions or course, it is the woman that raises the child. If she feels that she cannot raise that child for whatever reason, emotionally, financially, too many kids already, medical reasons, she was raped, is scared, her boyfriend is abusive etc etc, she has had the choice to end the pregnancy.

I see no better alternative at the moment.

I really don't care much about what you think of that. You have shared your feelings, and I am sharing mine. I make no claims about them being right or wrong.

Originally posted by worlds_away
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Because in the history of sex, with exceptions or course, it is the woman that raises the child. If she feels that she cannot raise that child for whatever reason, emotionally, financially, too many kids already, medical reasons, she was raped, is scared, her boyfriend is abusive etc etc, she has had the choice to end the pregnancy.

I see no better alternative at the moment.

I really don't care much about what you think of that. You have shared your feelings, and I am sharing mine. I make no claims about them being right or wrong.

And what if she only realizes this a week after she has had the baby???

All the reasons are the exact same...should she just be allowed to kill the baby???

reply to post by MindSpin


Sadly, that does happen. Some women I'm sure might not have known they were pregnant.

I can't judge anyone else's actions. Who am I to say if it is right or wrong?

Other people's choices about abortion do not affect my life.