Political veiws on abortion and other things

[Red Angel]

So increasing the population isn't a benefit to you all?

Probably not, actually. Just ask China.

[The Muffin Man]

Raz, just because Dictionary.com doesn't agree with you doesn't make it wrong.

2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Usually =! Always.

[RedStarWarrior]

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'par-&-"sIt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food.
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery.
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in.
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return.

Looks like MW agrees that a parasite doesn't have to hurt the host. Now, this is coming from your source, Raz.

BTW, TMM already pointed out the error in your statement based on the word 'usually' so I will say nothing but that I second it.

[Razola]

A fetus is not as parasite, people. It develops into a human being.

And the hell do these semantics all have to do with abortion anyways?

[Sorovis]

Anyone has the right to take any human life if it isn't forbidden by law.

I love the term 'right' you use to say why people can take eachother's lives. Really, the only time someone has the right to take someone's life is if their own is in danger or if the person is being executed.

The baby doesn't get punished at all. Murder is not a punishment for the victim, it is a punishment for the people it knows, and who care about it. Come to my house with an AK-47 and shoot me in the head before I can figure out what's going, and the only people you're going to punish are my family and my friends. I will be dead, so obviously, I won't give a crap. I mean, if no one cared about me, if my absence didn't affect anything, and that someone would try to kill me, although I would resist, I wouldn't view it as morally wrong. Worthless, but not wrong, because there is nothing wrong about actions that have no negative impact on anything.

Totally incorrect. To assume that murder has no negative impacts on the murderer him/herself is to simply be blind to the truth. Killing another human being has detrimental effects on the human mind-- murder, execution, anything of the like. Not only that, but like you said the people who knew you would feel terrible; even if you were merely an aqaintance.

Murder is simply wrong. It cuts short a person's chances of being great, average, or even happy. It does not matter if they will most likely be miserable, because that is their choice and theirs alone.

Murder is outlawed because people care about other people, and to give them a sense of security. No one cares about an embryo or fetus, and it won't affect anyone's sense of security.

Obviously people do, or abortion would be relatively unopposed.

Murder is outlawed so that each person has their own equal chance to enjoy their life, along with what you said above. Killing a person is not like killing a dear, even if you have never met them in your life. Ask anybody who has gone to war, accidentally run someone over, etc.. There is sublime discomfort in such an action, which frequently makes itself known in dreams; there is also conscious consequences, such as remembering the moment vividly again and again. Whether or not you believe humans are anything special, the unique side effects of killing one is undeniable.

Anyway, when you kill a living being you don't harm it. You just terminate its existence. It ceases to work. You can't harm something that does not function. What you can harm, are living beings who DO function. This said, I don't see anyone harmed in the case of an abortion.

I will touch on this issue soon; I will need more research before I do, however.

Even if it was murder, why would it be outlawed? Murder isn't always wrong you know. Plenty of wars, as well as death penalty, have demonstrated this, though I personally would say that abortion is much more justified than any of these two.

War is not murder, first and foremost. The death penalty I also am not sure on, but that is for a different debate. What you seem to be missing though, is that the death penalty is someone's choice. The person who is being executed chose to do the crimes that ultimately landed them in the electric chair, or the gas chamber. Someone did not just knock them out on the street and throw them in; that would be murder. War is a person's choice as well. No one is driven in terror onto the field with no intention of fighting and then starts shooting completely against his/her will. The decision for an abortion, if you will notice, is not made by the child who will be killed. Thus it cannot be compared to war or execution.

Anyway, the difference is that no one cares about the fetus, and that's the only reason you need. Life doesn't have any inherent worth. It is renewable. It's worth nothing when taken out of context.

Life is renewable, people are not. Last I checked, there is such a thing as individuality, in which no two people are exactly alike. While human beings will always be present despite abortion, the person the child killed may have become will never have the chance to exist.

If it isn't born it isn't born. There is no point in hypothetic scenarios, because you can push them as far as your imagination will allow you to. You're not going to miss something that never existed in the first place.

Obviously it did exist, or it could not have been killed.

And yes, everyone is unique, but actually, so is every plant, and so is every rock. That doesn't mean they can't be replaced. "Life" is an overrated concept, because, well, actually, it just doesn't mean anything. Living beings are legos. They are nature's building blocks. There's an infinite supply of these building blocks, and even if they all think they're special, the fact remains that nature has plenty of choice to build its castle. If one block falls, there's a hundred more waiting in line.

In case you haven't noticed, human beings are not governed by nature the same way animals are. A single person can cause a nuclear war and destroy all human life; a single person can stop that war before it happens.

Rocks are not living things, so I am going to directly to plants. Plants you see, have no free will. They cannot get up and walk around; they cannot pull an AK-47 and shoot someone to oblivion. Plants are plants, people are people. They are too different to compare on these grounds.

Cells can be replaced, plants can be replaced. So can humans. We aren't exactly a finality, you know.

Personality is not infinately renewable. There is a difference between human and personality.

And I still agree with Raz. Human beings, no matter what stage, are not parasites. Ticks are parasites, tapeworms are parasites, human beings are just not.

"Parasites, animals or plants which live and feed for at least a considerable part of life either in or upon other animals or plants, called 'hosts', to which they are generally harmful to a greater or lesser extent." --Webster's Unified Dictionary and Encyclopedia

Take this, along with the fact that human beings are the same species, and you can clearly see that human beings, in any stage, could not be considered biological parasites. Babies in their mothers are being incubated, and were created inside their mothers. They do not hide in their mother's food and feed of the unwilling mother's digested nutrients once they get to the womb. The mother is willing; which is not the case with parasites. It is reproduction, people, please learn the difference.

Oh, and for Adonis's definition, note "...useful or adequate return." Reproduction of course is an adequate return, correct?

Yeah really. What the hell does Dictionary.com know?

This is classic. Remember when I used the same site for a definition of homophobe? What was your response then?

And we all know Dictionary.com is the only source in the world.

Oh yeah, that's right. Maybe the same applies here, no?

[RedStarWarrior]

Actually, I concur that zygotes, embryoes and fetuses aren't parasites. I am just saying that TMM wasn't that off base when he made the analogy.

[Sorovis]

Sorry Raven. I must have missed that.

[RedStarWarrior]

In conclusion, TMM is incorrect, but his belief isn't that radical. It is merely a simple mistake.

See above.

Also, don't worry, we all miss things sometimes in reading.

[The Muffin Man]

This is classic. Remember when I used the same site for a definition of homophobe? What was your response then?

You...you DO understand the concept of sarcasm, right?

And Raz, I think it's because the pro-life'rs are trying to pull up "BUT MURDER IS ILLEGAL!" so me being a pro-choicer decided to pull up the "But you take antibiotics. And that kills something too."

Personality is not infinately renewable. There is a difference between human and personality.

Umm...A fetus doesn't have a personality, what are you trying to say here?

[Iveechan]

A fetus does have all the parts for a personality eventually. At the moment Mr. Sperm gets together with Mrs. Egg, all the building blocks come are there, they just need time to grow. Personality is both inherited and developed by outside environment.

[Hikaru]

I am pro-choice up until a certain time in the "life" of a fetus, and I support all forms of morning after pills and contraception.

Here is about the timeframe where I draw the line:

8 weeks - The unborn child, called a fetus at this stage, is about half an inch long. The tiny person is protected by the amnionic sac, filled with fluid. Inside, the child swims and moves gracefully. The arms and legs have lengthened, and fingers can be seen. The toes will develop in the next few days. Brain waves can be measured.

10 weeks - The heart is almost completely developed and very much resembles that of a newborn baby. An opening the atrium of the heart and the presence of a bypass valve divert much of the blood away from the lungs, as the child's blood is oxygenated through the placenta. Twenty tiny baby teeth are forming in the gums.

12 weeks - Vocal chords are complete, and the child can and does sometimes cry (silently). The brain is fully formed, and the child can feel pain. The fetus may even suck his thumb. The eyelids now cover the eyes, and will remain shut until the seventh month to protect the delicate optical nerve fibers.

At about 10 weeks.

For me, it's about when you can detect brain activity, and probably when the baby can feel pain. To lighten the post, here's a picture of a guy dressed like Zoidberg:

[Sorovis]

The Muffin Man, I thought in the least you would be able to tell that I based that entire point off of you being sarcastic. I'm sorry I have to clarify this for you, but in the first quote of yours I used, you were talking to Raz as if he were a moron for not accepting Dictionary.com's answer; in the second you told me that Dictionary.com was not the only dictionary in the world and that it was not necessarily correct. I did not know it was that hard for you to understand something so obvious.

Iveechan, my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.

[The Muffin Man]

The Muffin Man, I thought in the least you would be able to tell that I based that entire point off of you being sarcastic. I'm sorry I have to clarify this for you, but in the first quote of yours I used, you were talking to Raz as if he were a moron for not accepting Dictionary.com's answer; in the second you told me that Dictionary.com was not the only dictionary in the world and that it was not necessarily correct. I did not know it was that hard for you to understand something so obvious.

Up till the bolded part, I would be willing to say "Oh. My mistake." But you HAD to go and make that little remark, didn't you?

IveeChan, my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.[/QUOTE]

Then you open yourself for the "Killed the next Hitler" crap.

[The Muffin Man]

I am pro-choice up until a certain time in the "life" of a fetus, and I support all forms of morning after pills and contraception.

To lighten the post, here's a picture of a guy dressed like Zoidberg:

Hooray! He's useful!

[Sorovis]

Up till the bolded part, I would be willing to say "Oh. My mistake." But you HAD to go and make that little remark, didn't you?

Arrogance to be met with arrogance...

Then you open yourself for the "Killed the next Hitler" crap.

Not unless I use that argument for unborn children, which I have yet to do.

[Kris]

Hiakru we studied this in school once and nearly everyone said they agreed with abortion, then we were told how quickly the baby actually develops and everyone suddenly became unsure.

It is amazing how quickly features on a baby so appear, like hearts, eyes, brains.

It really makes you think aswell.

[Razola]

And Raz, I think it's because the pro-life'rs are trying to pull up "BUT MURDER IS ILLEGAL!" so me being a pro-choicer decided to pull up the "But you take antibiotics. And that kills something too."

So because we kill bacteria, we should legalize abortion? Keep in mind that I'm not die-hard prolife, but just showing weakness in the argument.

So if we kill bacteria, can we legalize murder too? In other words, we don't outlaw murder because it's just the act of killing. It's because we are trying to be somewhat civilized in this human society.

Like I said before, only for rape and endangerment of life. All other reasons are snuffing out a potential life just because it inconviences you, and that's just disgusting.

[Iveechan]

Just for future reference, it's Iveechan. No capital "c".

[Sorovis]

Apologies; edited my post to correct the error.

[The Muffin Man]

So because we kill bacteria, we should legalize abortion? Keep in mind that I'm not die-hard prolife, but just showing weakness in the argument.

You misunderstand. I only brought up the bacteria thing BECAUSE the hardcore pro-lifers bring up that argument. Not because I think it justifies anything. It's just as farfetched and stupid.

And Sorovis - Ever heard of being the bigger person, rather than retaliating with more arrogance than was shown in that post towards you?

[VampireCharizard]

i've been sleeping the past three days not looking at this issue and it dawned on me i should catch up on my reading before it gets out of hand and i find that three pages have been added ok... Parasites... that's totaly ridiculous seeing as how they're the same species. And as mentioned before, what living thing creates a parasite within themselves? If you haven't noticed, all mamals do so. Except that one that lays eggs.
ya... did that work? it better have. ok so... since when is a dictionary an unreliable source of information? why would they purposely (or accidentaly) get the definition of a word wrong and Raz and TMM have been debating so much about the validity of the theory that a fetus is a parasite, I don't even know which one is pro life or pro choice... and using anti-biotics have absolutely NOTHING to do with abortion whatsoever. Again i say (as others have too) it's the way of life for organisms to kill and usually ingest OTHER species of organisms to SURVIVE. 'cept for canibals but that's yet ANOTHER issue brought up by this.
i hope that one worked, too... I'm sure there's somthin I forgot, but Whatever

[Sorovis]

And Sorovis - Ever heard of being the bigger person, rather than retaliating with more arrogance than was shown in that post towards you?

Was it not just you who told Raz to 'practice what you preach'? I would take your own advice if I were you. Don't be so hypocritical.

Also, I have never in my life heard pro-life supporters bring up the bacteria argument; could you maybe direct us to a link? I'd really like to see where your getting this from.

[VampireCharizard]

that's waht i forgot to add in with my post... the bacteria thingy

[Iveechan]

Bacteria are pretty damn harmful so you HAVE to kill them. Antibodies are a form of self defense (even though the bacteria are retaliating by becoming more resistant). No matter how hard you try, you cannot go through life without harming a single living creature. I mean, you drive a car and add to the pollution, so you're contributing to harming every other living thing on earth.

[Sorovis]

Not all bacteria are harmful. Many are actually very beneficial to the human body and their presence is necessary for a human to live. In regards to harmful bacteria, it is true that it is impossible to avoid killing them.

This however, is not important to the argument. Killing single-celled bacteria is very different from killing an unborn baby, no matter what stages of development it is in.

[Charles Legend]

I have a few more things to say that may or may not Speak to your hearts

Are we not All entitled to a life?
To live to Smell the roses?
To eat the Sweet honey of the earth?
To play in the soft sand of a beach?
To hear a Sweet musical melodies?
To love and to be loved?
Is this not a world were we can make Art out of Raw materials?
Is this not a world where if you Believe in dreams can come true, they can?
Is this not a world where the imposable is possible?
Are not a Man’s creations only limited to his own Imagination?
Why do kill are own flesh and blood, Are they just not as Entitled to live as us outside the womb?

Or is this this reality just one big fat lie, and that it really never Existed at any time?
If the above Question is true. Then who and what are we? Are we just a vase amount of mater reliving the Past?

Anyways the only time that I fell that Abortion is right is if and only if she were to be killed giving birth to it however you liberals have blown that point way out of proportion and have Deserved many Women in to thinking that every time they get pregnant weather by choice or not that they need an abortion, yes I am saying even if she was raped she should keep it, why you ask because why Should the baby suffer and get killed just because their a product of rape, how ever much you think about it as being wrong for the woman to keep it just remember that it is still a life and if given the chance to live it. I ask you is it Right for us to meddle in the future of the unborn? I say no it is not, like a seed you well never know what it can be unless you plant it and let it grow the same is true of a baby you well never know what they well be if you never give them the Chance to live.....

How ever Let me make one thing Clear as Crystal I am Pro Choice, and I fully agree that a woman has the right to do with her body. But face the fact that the baby growing in her is not her baby it’s a whole defiant person growing in her, and She Should be happy that She is Blessed with a child of her very own and helping to Ensure the Survival of mankind.

~Ryu

[Sorovis]

Your input is appreciated, Ryu, but please remember that the majority of the people on these forums do not follow the Christian faith, nor do they believe in God. While your response may be effective in the Christian spiritual sense, I am afraid scientific answers and evidence are the only things that will be accepted by the Pokemasters population in general. Just keep that in mind.

And for the rest of you, I will ask that you restrain any hostile comments sent in Ryu's direction, please. No direct insults are necessary on this thread or anywhere else.

[Metallixs Girl]

I'm not very good at debating, but I would just like to say that I agree 100% with Ryu. Very well-said Ryu, every unborn baby deserves all the chance it can get to be born, and if it's not supposed to live then God will call it to heaven (and for the non religeous, nature will take its course) when it's time. But I don't believe we have the right to decide to deprive an already concieved and developing baby of life. Exept if it would severly (medically) damage or kill the mother.

[phaedrus]

I'm not very good at debating, but I would just like to say that I agree 100% with Ryu. Very well-said Ryu, every unborn baby deserves all the chance it can get to be born, and if it's not supposed to live then God will call it to heaven (and for the non religeous, nature will take its course) when it's time.

very religious already. the other point is, what would YOU consider an unborn baby. a fertilized egg? an embryo? what IS the point that it's considered a baby? third trimester?

But I dont believe we have the right to decide to deprive an already concieved and developing baby of life. Exept if it would severly (medically) damage or kill the mother.

in the broad sense, the death of a zygote/embryo isn't gonna destroy the world. sure, in a microscopic sense, it can mean the whole world, but everyone has to move on. not only that, there's re-conceiving.

[Metallixs Girl]

I said "already concieved and developing" so to me it's a baby at the moment of conception. When my mom told me she was pregnant with my 2 siblings, I immediately believed they were growing babies who weren't formed yet or "ready to come out of mom's tummy", but I never believed they weren't babies, since pregnant = a baby in the stomache, and I never ever think of a pregnancy as anything less than a developing baby.

[Iveechan]

I never said ALL bacteria.

[Rudoku]

I have no problems with abortions. If it were ever made illegal here, I'd invest in coat hangers and wet-dry vacs, and be rich, because it wouldn't stop.

[Sorovis]

I never said ALL bacteria.

You did not say some bacteria either; to me it looked like all.

It is true however if abortion made illegal, it would not stop. While not the same as The Prohibition of the 1920's in the United States, I suspect there may be a similar reaction if abortion was illegal. Underground organizations would still do it and all of that; plus it would enrage pro-choice supporters to a point that could (and most likely would) lead to rioting.

[Sarcastic Assassin]

I realize that most teenage girls can't or maybe won't take care of their child but they can do adoption and Im sorry that there are abbusive people but i still feel it's better to allow your child to live their life out to the fullest. and the republican party keeps the govt. out of personal life, and allow you to do what you want with YOUR body, but your child is not your body or YOUR soul. It may be part of your body, but it won't be for long. and even if they are abused as children, they will grow up to have their own life and maybe have children and get married and get a job, be president, the possibilties are endless, but if you have an abortion... the child will have NO possibilites NO hope NO joy in life. and it seems a bit selfish to have an abortion so you don't have any pain. just to point out I'm trying not to flame anyone and i won't be in the later parts of this post... Flame me all you want I'm not changing my mind that abortion is wrong and as for the living thing eating thing. just so you're clear on this - THAT'S HOW THE WORLD WORKS. you expect us to eat rocks? no. Now I'm against canibals so there! shove that up your arse! And we don't all eat human beings. we also all don't kill. except murderurs. and stuff. oh bloody hell know what i mean

First of all, abortion isn't limited to a teenager who got a little too drunk, and woke up pregnant. Imagine a situation where an older (ie, 45+ [menopause usually kicks in at 45-50]) woman becomes pregnant, but doesn't want to have a child, either because she thinks she's too old, or because she can't support it financially, or for other reasons. As for living life, I'm all for it. For me, life is awesome; but picture a baby born into the poorest section of a city. The mother decides not to go through with an abortion. Again, this mother may be 19 or 39; but she's a mother, with a newborn. That's another liability that she has to cover. She has to provide shelter, clothes (along with diapers), food, a bed, an education (though it's largely paid for by the government, there's still lunch money, school supplies, etc), some security for the future, but most importantly, a little tender, loving care. In addition to her personal needs. Of course, there's a father, but if a woman's going to get an abortion, the father most likely doesn't really have much of a say in it (assuming he's not around).

EDIT: Just a quick note. It takes a man and a woman to make a child. Why can't the woman decide not to have a child? It was the woman who gave the child life, so why can't she take it away? Oh wait, there's God. Well, where was God on September 11? Where's God when the sweatshops in Venezuela pop up? Where's God when American troops torture prison inmates, for no clear reason? Is it in God's plan for Big Tobacco CEO's to make billions, while their victims suffer from emphysema?

[Metallixs Girl]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

[Red Angel]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

Oh, sure, blame the third party. And that's where any mention of God vs. Satan should stop becuase this is going to become another religious discussion, which I'm sure we don't need.

[Sorovis]

First of all, abortion isn't limited to a teenager who got a little too drunk, and woke up pregnant. Imagine a situation where an older (ie, 45+ [menopause usually kicks in at 45-50]) woman becomes pregnant, but doesn't want to have a child, either because she thinks she's too old, or because she can't support it financially, or for other reasons. As for living life, I'm all for it. For me, life is awesome; but picture a baby born into the poorest section of a city. The mother decides not to go through with an abortion. Again, this mother may be 19 or 39; but she's a mother, with a newborn. That's another liability that she has to cover. She has to provide shelter, clothes (along with diapers), food, a bed, an education (though it's largely paid for by the government, there's still lunch money, school supplies, etc), some security for the future, but most importantly, a little tender, loving care. In addition to her personal needs. Of course, there's a father, but if a woman's going to get an abortion, the father most likely doesn't really have much of a say in it (assuming he's not around).

No matter what circumstances the person is born into, they may still become great, have an important influence on someone, etc.. Again, people do not have the foresight to see all ends, and cannot determine whether someone's life will be miserable or incredible.

EDIT: Just a quick note. It takes a man and a woman to make a child. Why can't the woman decide not to have a child? It was the woman who gave the child life, so why can't she take it away? Oh wait, there's God. Well, where was God on September 11? Where's God when the sweatshops in Venezuela pop up? Where's God when American troops torture prison inmates, for no clear reason? Is it in God's plan for Big Tobacco CEO's to make billions, while their victims suffer from emphysema?

This is not God's will, rather the effects of sin. Due to sin we have rape, September 11, murder, everything. It is not God's neglegance nor his will that causes this pain, it is our own will and actions. Remove sin, you remove pain. Unfortunately, sin can be as small as a jealous thought, and human beings are not strong enough to resist sin for all of their lives.

Note that it is the American soldiers that torture prison inmates, and terrorists who caused the Twin Towers to collapse. Not God's will, but Man's.

After reading Red Angel's above post, I agree. Let us get back on topic before this becomes too derailed. If you have religious questions, or feel like bashing Christianity, take it to a new thread and I will be more than happy to meet you there.

[RedStarWarrior]

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

God created Satan.

[Brain]

I love the term 'right' you use to say why people can take eachother's lives. Really, the only time someone has the right to take someone's life is if their own is in danger or if the other person agrees.

Actually, the latter is illegal. Other than that it pretty much corresponds to what I said doesn't it?

Totally incorrect. To assume that murder has no negative impacts on the murderer him/herself is to simply be blind to the truth. Killing another human being has detrimental effects on the human mind-- murder, execution, anything of the like.

Negative impact on the murderer? What? I never said anything on whatever impact it could have to the murderer. And frankly no one cares about the impact on the murderer, that's his action, that's his problem.

Not only that, but like you said the people who knew you would feel terrible; even if you were merely an aqaintance.

Of course, and that is the reason why murder is considered as wrong. However, it does not apply to abortion.

Murder is simply wrong. It cuts short a person's chances of being great, average, or even happy. It does not matter if they will most likely be miserable, because that is their choice and theirs alone.

I am too pragmatical to see any value to that argument. My views on the notions of right and wrong are purely statistical. In short, I won't bother.

Obviously people do, or abortion would be relatively unopposed.

No one does. They'll be like "eww abortion that's so wrong" and then they'll forget about it. Sure maybe some fat **** in Wyoming cares that some californian girl's baby is getting aborted, but that's just because he opposes abortion, and once it's done, he'll just keep eating and forget about it until the next time he hears something similar.

The example is gross and yeah I had fun coming up with it, but the point was/is, that no one GENUINELY cares about an aborted baby.

Murder is outlawed so that each person has their own equal chance to enjoy their life, along with what you said above.

Sounds good, but it's not a potent definition.

Killing a person is not like killing a dear, even if you have never met them in your life.

Deers are awesome you heartless jerk.

Ask anybody who has gone to war, accidentally run someone over, etc.. There is sublime discomfort in such an action, which frequently makes itself known in dreams; there is also conscious consequences, such as remembering the moment vividly again and again. Whether or not you believe humans are anything special, the unique side effects of killing one is undeniable.

Are we still talking about abortion? I mean, I know what you're talking about, but seriously, what kind of doctor will feel that way after killing an embryo? I could understand for a fetus in its late stages, but no one who is moderately sensitive is going to feel bad for killing an embryo.

War is not murder, first and foremost.

Oh come on it's the same damn thing, except that it's bigger, better and legal.

The death penalty I also am not sure on, but that is for a different debate. What you seem to be missing though, is that the death penalty is someone's choice. The person who is being executed chose to do the crimes that ultimately landed them in the electric chair, or the gas chamber. Someone did not just knock them out on the street and throw them in; that would be murder.

What you seem to be missing, is that many people who intimately know the murderer may have strong feelings for him or her, and that executing said person may have a very negative impact on these people. The execution of a murderer has a much more negative impact than killing a fetus on both the people he or she knew, and on other people who may feel insecurized by such a measure. Add in the fact it's ineffective, and you've got a real loser.

War is a person's choice as well. No one is driven in terror onto the field with no intention of fighting and then starts shooting completely against his/her will.

What about the people he/she's gonna shoot? War doesn't just involve soldiers.

The decision for an abortion, if you will notice, is not made by the child who will be killed. Thus it cannot be compared to war or execution.

No one cares about the child, and no one cares about whatever it may choose. It's unwanted, period.

Life is renewable, people are not. Last I checked, there is such a thing as individuality, in which no two people are exactly alike.

People are renewable for the purpose they fulfill. There is no such thing as a person doing something no one else can do. Individuality is a tool, and many different individualities can achieve identical or very similar results.

While human beings will always be present despite abortion, the person the child killed may have become will never have the chance to exist.

And we should care because...?

In case you haven't noticed, human beings are not governed by nature the same way animals are.

hahaahahahaha

I'll leave it at that.

Rocks are not living things, so I am going to directly to plants. Plants you see, have no free will. They cannot get up and walk around; they cannot pull an AK-47 and shoot someone to oblivion. Plants are plants, people are people. They are too different to compare on these grounds.

Free will is such a made up notion it's not even funny. The fact of getting up and walking around is irrelevant. If there is such a situation where plants can be replaced, then there is such a situation where humans can be replaced.

Personality is not infinate. There is a difference between human and personality.

I fail to see the point.

my point is that all people have a personality and that if any person is killed, that specific personality is lost. I did not mean for that to be used for unborn children; at least not yet. All I was doing was countering Brain's response regarding the unimportance of life.

I never said anything about the unimportance of life. I was rather talking about the statistical unimportance of a single life. One life is nothing. It is the addition of these nothings that make up something.

The goal of a good society isn't to save every life that can be saved, the aim is to optimize the quality of the lives which exist, while maintaining a self-sufficient reproductive pool whose optimality is not required. In that regard, abortion, even though it ends the life of the fetus, is an action that is acceptable on the basis that it improves the quality of life of the mother without having nefast side effects. Besides, relatively few people make use of that measure, so it doesn't have any impact on survival.

If flipping a coin at a baby's third anniversary and killing him or her if it's tails could significantly improve the world's global happiness, then it would be the right thing to do. Obviously, in the real world, that wouldn't make anyone happy. However, in the case of abortion, it does.

I have a few more things to say that may or may not Speak to your hearts

Are we not All entitled to a life?
To live to Smell the roses?
To eat the Sweet honey of the earth?
To play in the soft sand of a beach?
To hear a Sweet musical melodies?
To love and to be loved?
Is this not a world were we can make Art out of Raw materials?
Is this not a world where if you Believe in dreams can come true, they can?
Is this not a world where the imposable is possible?
Are not a Man’s creations only limited to his own Imagination?
Why do kill are own flesh and blood, Are they just not as Entitled to live as us outside the womb?

Life isn't a right. It's a privilege. It has always been. Get over it.

I ask you is it Right for us to meddle in the future of the unborn? I say no it is not, like a seed you well never know what it can be unless you plant it and let it grow the same is true of a baby you well never know what they well be if you never give them the Chance to live.....

So I should feel bad for eating sunflower seeds now? They could have been so beautiful if I planted them

Anyway, there is about 99% chance that the newborn will end up being a mediocre human being. When you know the baby is unwanted and may suffer from that condition, when you know parents aren't going to do a good job, when you know it will be tough as hell to put the baby in adoption, I would say that keeping it just isn't worth the gamble. You can't just give a chance to everyone, you know.

Meat farms won't stop slaughtering cows in the vain hope to see the first talking cow, miracle of evolution ;\

In case that's not a rhetorical quistion, I have to say: No, it was Satan's. Why does everyone get mad at God for Satan's doings?

<theological curiosity>Why wouldn't God just kill Satan? I mean, I thought the Dude was omnipotent </theological curiosity>

[Sorovis]

Actually, the latter is illegal. Other than that it pretty much corresponds to what I said doesn't it?

Just pointing out how strange it seemed phrasing it as the 'right' to kill, no matter how true it may be. I think maybe some of your reasons for murder may have been off, or something along those lines. If not, I most likely got carried away.

Negative impact on the murderer? What? I never said anything on whatever impact it could have to the murderer. And frankly no one cares about the impact on the murderer, that's his action, that's his problem.

Yes, but you said the only things that killing someone punished were the people who knew the murdered person, which is not true. It has many negative effects, both conscious and unconscious. And actually, if the murderer suffers the mental consequences, he/she becomes perhaps more likely to kill again.

Of course, and that is the reason why murder is considered as wrong. However, it does not apply to abortion.

Just meant to make my point clear; I'm not quite ready to debate abortion effectively, as I have said.

I am too pragmatical to see any value to that argument. My views on the notions of right and wrong are purely statistical. In short, I won't bother.

Statistics cannot provide pure answers. They are too corrupted by factors around them, ie. bias, misinformation, misconception, an unknown agent that effects the outcome, etc.. They can still be useful; just not to answer everything.

If you were to poll all of the human population on whether or not homosexuality was acceptable, you would always come across those who were not serious, misled by incorrect information, or too biased. Just an example, but it just goes to show statistics do not necessarily represent the correct answer.

No one does. They'll be like "eww abortion that's so wrong" and then they'll forget about it. Sure maybe some fat **** in Wyoming cares that some californian girl's baby is getting aborted, but that's just because he opposes abortion, and once it's done, he'll just keep eating and forget about it until the next time he hears something similar.

The example is gross and yeah I had fun coming up with it, but the point was/is, that no one GENUINELY cares about an aborted baby.

The mother perhaps? Keep in mind in some cases of abortion the mother does sometimes care about the child and does not want to have to resort to abortion. The mother (and quote possibly the father) may have wanted the baby in the first place.

Sounds good, but it's not a potent definition.

Didn't mean for it to be. Just pointing out some reasons as to why murder is illegal.

Deers are awesome you heartless jerk.

Yes I know, but they are not going to have such an impact on the world as people do. Deers are different than people on many counts.

Are we still talking about abortion? I mean, I know what you're talking about, but seriously, what kind of doctor will feel that way after killing an embryo? I could understand for a fetus in its late stages, but no one who is moderately sensitive is going to feel bad for killing an embryo.

First, no, I did not mean for this to apply to abortion. I have no evidence or basis to say this happens during such a procedure. I was trying to make clear the negative consequences of murder.

Oh come on it's the same damn thing, except that it's bigger, better and legal.

Not necessarily. If someone attacks you and your only other option is to allow yourself to be killed and your land and friends slaughtered as well, there is no sin in defending yourself. 'Thou shalt not murder', not 'Thou shalt not kill'. This frequent misinterpretation has led to quite a few illogical and foolish arguments.

What you seem to be missing, is that many people who intimately know the murderer may have strong feelings for him or her, and that executing said person may have a very negative impact on these people. The execution of a murderer has a much more negative impact than killing a fetus on both the people he or she knew, and on other people who may feel insecurized by such a measure. Add in the fact it's ineffective, and you've got a real loser.

Yes, but it was ultimately the person's choice that landed him/her in Death Row, as opposed to you, who had no idea what was going on even when you were shot in the head with an AK-47. It is the murderers fault that his/her friends must deal with his/her death, and not your fault for being shot in the head for no reason. I would also like to note I am just debating the importance of human life; I did not intend for this to apply to abortion.

What about the people he/she's gonna shoot? War doesn't just involve soldiers.

It should; the killing of civilions is murder, as they did not choose nor did they want to be involved. There is no reason to kill them because they had not provided an actual threat to the soldiers' lives.

No one cares about the child, and no one cares about whatever it may choose. It's unwanted, period.

Not always the case; there are also cases where the child is wanted, but circumstances may make having the child more trouble than the mother thinks it is worth. Trust me, or look into it yourself, abortion is not always just a procedure.

People are renewable for the purpose they fulfill. There is no such thing as a person doing something no one else can do. Individuality is a tool, and many different individualities can achieve identical or very similar results.

No one has replaced Alexander the Great, nor will anybody ever do so. His talents were best applied to his time period, and now that that period has passed, even if he was killed as a child, if he were to reincarnate himself now he would not have the same impact with his life and actions as he did so many thousands of years ago.

And we should care because...?

Because that person may have had a signifigant effect on the world.

Free will is such a made up notion it's not even funny. The fact of getting up and walking around is irrelevant. If there is such a situation where plants can be replaced, then there is such a situation where humans can be replaced.

Free will is as real as the air around us.

Plants do not have free will and cannot have the same impact as humans. Not only due to a lack of free will, but due to their not being consciously aware of their surroundings, and of course their limitations on movement. Let us also note that humans are capable of taking immediate action to defend themselves if they are under attack, working as groups in many instances to eliminate a, under normal circumstances, superior threat. Plants and humans are too different to compare on these grounds, as you can plainly see.

I fail to see the point.

Humans can be replaced, their individual personalities cannot. That was my point; sorry if it may have seemed unclear due to how I typed it.

I never said anything about the unimportance of life. I was rather talking about the statistical unimportance of a single life. One life is nothing. It is the addition of these nothings that make up something.

One life can determine the life of many or all. Start a nuclear war by the push of a button, and millions will die, all by the choice of one. Individual life can make all the difference.

The goal of a good society isn't to save every life that can be saved, the aim is to optimize the quality of the lives which exist, while maintaining a self-sufficient reproductive pool whose optimality is not required. In that regard, abortion, even though it ends the life of the fetus, is an action that is acceptable on the basis that it improves the quality of life of the mother without having nefast side effects. Besides, relatively few people make use of that measure, so it doesn't have any impact on survival.

Killing one another should never be an option to improve the quality of life around us. In some cases, such as murderers, there is no other considerable option. In the case of unborn babies, they should not be aborted for reasons such as the mother's well being in most cases. If it was not the mother's choice and her life were in danger, there may be an exception.

If flipping a coin at a baby's third anniversary and killing him or her if it's tails could significantly improve the world's global happiness, then it would be the right thing to do. Obviously, in the real world, that wouldn't make anyone happy. However, in the case of abortion, it does.

Even if killing the child increased global happiness, it should not be a choice, as there are other methods of increasing happiness. As for a real world case such as abortion, unless the mother's life is in danger, the child should not be killed. Again it is not human decision who should live or die; or at least it should not be.

Life isn't a right. It's a privilege. It has always been. Get over it.

And none of us has the right to take that privilege from another. Would you take person's privilege to walk simply because it benefitted you? I really hope not.

Anyway, there is about 99% chance that the newborn will end up being a mediocre human being. When you know the baby is unwanted and may suffer from that condition, when you know parents aren't going to do a good job, when you know it will be tough as hell to put the baby in adoption, I would say that keeping it just isn't worth the gamble. You can't just give a chance to everyone, you know.

Being a mediocre human is not necessarily bad. Nor, again, should a person have the right to take the child's future away, regardless of chance. Again, humans are incapable of seeing all ends; that mediocre person may do something incredible during the course of their life.

Meat farms won't stop slaughtering cows in the vain hope to see the first talking cow, miracle of evolution ;\

Stop being ridiculous. Cows could not talk from a single mutation and you know it. That would be like if I brought up that abortion may kill the first flying super intelligent human. Just no.

<theological curiosity>Why wouldn't God just kill Satan? I mean, I thought the Dude was omnipotent </theological curiosity>

I believe Checkmate has answered this one before and I do not recall the answer. I will let him handle it:

Well, for one thing, he will. Just not yet. For another thing, he does bind him. It is biblical fact that Satan has to ask God for permission to do just about anything. That leads us to the question of why would God let him tempt us?

Possibly so that God the father may reward us. A father delights in rewarding his son, but cannot reward him if the son does nothing to deserve the reward. Temptation=opportunity for reward. Overcoming temptation= recieving reward (definetly in heaven with a potential for reward on Earth as well) This also helps to explain the salvation question. By accepting Christ's blood sacrifice, you are seen as perfect in the eyes of God. Blood atones for sins. (the fact that blood is needed to atone for sin could give some limited insight into the seriousness of the matter)

I think this answers that question fairly. Essentially Satan is under God's control, and God allows him to tempt us to see if we will choose the right path. And God will destroy Satan in the coming future.