Sword legion : So you accept that it is acceptable to kill even humans if one has a reason? Excellent. In that case, it doesn't matter if the fetus is a human or not. The mother has bodily autonomy, which is enough reason to justify its removal. And no, fetus is not a baby. A baby is defined as having been born. Really, this isn't difficult. Oh, and a fetus does not require sexual intercourse to create. See in-vitro fertilization. Soon new advancements in medical research will allow fetuses to be grown entirely in laboratories.

Now to address some points more head-on (this forum really needs a quote function).

- Abortion is not murder because murder is a legal term. Right and wrong have nothing to do with that. As for your religious beliefs, they are irrelevent to both me and the law. I could very easily point to Deuternomy, where the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is punished by death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the different between a fetus and a person), but that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you please.

- I use the term "homophobia" for homophobic people. If I wanted to use a term purely for its shock value, I could do much better. And yes, for the purposes of debate, I tend to keep my emotions as far removed as possible. Incidentally, your beloved Greeks were big on homosexuality and especially paederasty.

- The difference between a fetus and a person is that a person is sentient, or has the capacity for sentience. Being aborted means you never reach that level, and as such, cannot be treated as a person. Furthermore, even a person unable to fend for him or herself does not require another person's body to survive.

I post only on subjects I understand. You seem to love posting on subjects you feel strongly about, but never really understand. I still remember your definition of the Big Bang Theory as "exploding dirt". You seem to be going about things the same way here. And the worst part is you have consistently demonstrated that you have no interest in learning about the subjects you argue. You just stick your fingers in your ears and make your ideological point over and over. You want to be respected? Respect has to be earned. Go learn about the subject and make more meaningful posts.

Oh, and I haven't called you a single "name" in this thread, if you really want to resort to such childish defenses. You really seem to love complaining about being insulted whenever you have no response. If you take such offense to people having different opinions, perhaps you should not enter debate threads.

Traduweise :

"So you accept that it is acceptable to kill even humans if one has a reason?
Excellent. In that case, it doesn't matter if the fetus is a human or not"

No, we have to treat humans differently than other things.
Would you kill a fly for landing in a sugar bowl? How about a child
for stealing candy? 


"Oh, and a fetus does not require sexual intercourse to create. See in-vitro fertilization. Soon new advancements in medical research will allow fetuses to be grown entirely in laboratories." 

So, when they are an adult, you wouldn't consider them human?


"the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is punished by death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the different between a fetus and a person)"

If an individual hurts a woman with child, and the child dies, it is not considered murder because it was not purposeful.
Purposeful murder is different from an accident.


"But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you please."

At first you say the the "Goat Herders" understand that it's just a fetus, then you say that it's an inconsistency.
Which is it?


"I use the term "homophobia" for homophobic people"

Homophobia is a term made up to insult people like me, and you're using it.


"Incidentally, your beloved Greeks were big on homosexuality and especially paederasty."

Insulting again by calling them my "beloved Greeks"


"The difference between a fetus and a person is that a person is sentient"

I would disagree with this, because this would mean that people who are very old and are on
their death bed, or people who have certain degrees of mental handicaps are not human.


"I post only on subjects I understand."


Traduwiese also said:

"the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is punished by death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the different between a fetus and a person)"

But then he said:

"But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you please."

At first you say the the "Goat Herders" understand that it's just a fetus,
then you say that it's a religious inconsistency to suggest that killing a fetus is
not murder.

I don't think that you only talk about subjects that you understand.


"Oh, and I haven't called you a single "name" in this thread, if you really want to resort to such childish defenses. You really seem to love complaining about being insulted whenever you have no response. If you take such offense to people having different opinions, perhaps you should not enter debate threads."

You're not posting things in a very nice, friendly context. I wasn't getting after your for insulting
only me, but you do it to anyone who disagrees with your opinion.

"If you take such offense to people having different opinions, perhaps you should not enter debate threads."

It's not the "other people having different opinions" that is offensive. It's the calling my points "moot points"
and such. 



"If you really want to resort to such childish defenses."

Thank you very much for calling them "childish defenses".


"And the worst part is you have consistently demonstrated that you have no interest in learning about the subjects you argue.
You just stick your fingers in your ears and make your ideological point over and over"

That was quite nice, they way you worded that. You don't care about me as an individual, but I care about you.
It would match up with your view on abortion. Your life is incredibly valuable. And once a life is gone, it's gone.
That is why I debate, it's to help people, not belittle them, although, granted, I may have had trouble in that area in
the past. The reason that I changed my mind about debate conduct, is not because of you or the trust point rapers,
it is because of the kind words of rcarter2, and another friend. Do you believe that humans should look out for one another's
benefit? Or, are we all in it for ourselves?

Sword legion :   I am going by the standards you set out. You claimed that it is acceptable to kill a human if one has a reason. If that is the case, then it does not matter what the fetus is. So long as you have a reason, it will always be acceptable to kill it (I really hope you intended to say a good reason, and not just any reason at all). And I have no idea where you get the idea that I'd think a person grown in a laboratory would not be a human. The completely illogical ideas you come up with really boggle the mind.

- As for the whole miscarriage/abortion debacle from the Bible, you don't actually know that the fetus wasn't killed purposefully. You're just making baseless assumptions. The inconsistency, of course, lies in the fact that you seem to think your religious beliefs justify your opposition to abortion. They really don't, unless you have already made up your mind and are just seeking justification. Then religious texts can typically be used to justify anything you want.

- All words are made-up at some point. "Homophobia" is as made-up a term as any other "phobia" term. Words ranging from "arachnaphobia" (for an actual fear of spiders) to "hydrophobia" (for an aversion to water) are used to express attitudes we have toward the world around us. I sincerely hope I don't have to go on explaining to you the purpose of language. "Homophobia" is a term to express certain attitudes toward homosexuals. It is not judgemental in any way; people who hear it may use it to make judgement calls, but I feel homophobic is a far more reasonable term than what many others use.

- The word sentience at its core means 'capable of sensing'. Even the mentally handicapped or ill are capable of sensing. And don't try and quote mine me. I said a person is sentient or has the capacity for sentience, so even a person in a coma will usually qualify. A fetus, or better yet, a zygote, is not developed enough to have the capacity for sentience.

- I do indeed talk about things I understand. Fortunately, I don't find your opinion on this matter of any importance, seeing as how your entire existence on the debate forum seems devoted to posting about things you misunderstand. As for whether or not we care for each other, that isn't relevent. You consistently respond to points by saying "well that's offensive". It's a cheap and intellectually dishonest way to avoid debate, so I call you on it. If it hurts your feelings, then I am sorry, but I won't let you try and shift the conversation away from things you clearly can't respond to because you claim to be offended.

If you genuinely want to learn and engage in a heuristic debate, that's good. But in previous threads, and even this one to an extent, you've constantly refused to entertain opposing viewpoints, prefering instead to just repeat your ideological statements over and over regardless of what other people say. I freely admit I don't have the patience rcarter2 does in explaining things, but I think I've given you plenty of opportunities here and in the past to learn. You simply refused, and I decided it was a waste of time to type out a lengthy explanation when you would pass it over with a one line response.

You want me to believe you are getting better? Prove it. I will admit you don't seem as bent on pressing your ideology blindly into everyone's face, and I do see your concern over abortion. The thing is, it simply doesn't make sense. You're going on a completely made-up assumption that a person's life begins at conception. The thing is, both the egg and the sperm have to be alive for conception to occur, so life clearly begins before conception. At conception, you have an egg with a sperm stuck in it. That is not a human being by any stretch. At what point we call it a person is completely arbitrary, but there is simply no way that an egg with a sperm in it is equivalent to a fully-developed human being. I suppose that is the point behind the Deuteronomy passage. Trying to pass of a cell or a small clump of cells as a person is new. It wasn't done 4000 years ago, it wasn't done 2000 years ago. It happened only when abortion became an ideological battleground. It's just silly.

Sword legion : No I said it isn't han solo in my picture because it isn't han solo at all, that's not harrison ford in my picture I think you need glasses and you need to actually watch star wars because I don't think you know who he is. Location is relevant because until a baby is officially born it doesn't exist as a human being in society. That's why no one counts living fetuses in the population numbers.

Sword legion :

I haven't seen myself neither spamming or getting banned yet. I find it kind of hostile that you think my opinions are spam and I should be banned for having them when yours should be the only ones worthy enough to be posted around here. Or so you seem to think, obviously.

Traduweise :

"You claimed that it is acceptable to kill a human if one has a reason."
"(I really hope you intended to say a good reason, and not just any reason at all)"

In the manner used the word reason should be just fine.
You're being nit-pickey on purpose.

"The completely illogical ideas you come up with really boggle the mind."

This is an insult made to cloud the mind and bring enjoyment to
the original poster.

"As for the whole miscarriage/abortion debacle from the Bible, you don't actually
know that the fetus wasn't killed purposefully. You're just making baseless
assumptions."

No, you're the one who made the assumption that the fetus was killed purposefully.

"The inconsistency, of course ,lies in the fact that you seem to think your
religious beliefs justify your opposition to abortion"

1 notice the underlined words, theses words exist only to irritate or flame the
opponent.

2 I have not even attacked you from a religious stand point.

"They really don't, unless you have already made up your mind and are just seeking
justification. Then religious texts can typically be used to justify anything you
want."

People can and do manipulate the Bible to say whatever they want.
But that does not mean that the Bible says whatever you want it to say.
You have to manipulate it first.

"All words are made-up at some point. "Homophobia" is as made-up a term as any
other "phobia" term."

No, it is specifically used to insult other people, and you're using it.
This is like calling a black person a n***** just to differentiate.

"The word sentience at its core means 'capable of sensing'. Even the mentally
handicapped or ill are capable of sensing. And don't try and quote mine me. I said
a person is sentient or has the capacity for sentience, so even a person in a coma
will usually qualify. A fetus, or better yet, a zygote, is not developed enough to
have the capacity for sentience."

Seems like your definition would leave some people in coma out of the deal.
Not all humans have sentience.

"I do indeed talk about things I understand."
 
Traduwiese also said:
 
"the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry
against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is   punished by
death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the
different between a fetus and a person)"

 But then he said:
 
"But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you  
please."
 
At first you say the the "Goat Herders" understand that it's just a fetus,
then you say that it's a religious inconsistency to suggest that killing a fetus  
is not murder.
 
I don't think that you only talk about subjects that you understand.
 
His defense is:
 
"The inconsistency, of course, lies in the fact that you seem to think
 your religious beliefs justify your opposition to abortion"
 
I never brought religion into this, you did.
you have changed what "inconsistency" you are refering to.
earlier, you said:
   
"the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry  
against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is   punished by  
death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the  
different between a fetus and a person)"
 
And then you said:
 
"But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you    
please."
 
I see what you are doing.
 
You are aware that you do not know what the Bible says.

"As for whether or not we care for each other, that isn't relevent."
Other things that Traduweises has said:
 
"Fortunately, I don't find your opinion on this matter of any importance"
 
"you clearly can't respond to because you claim to be offended."
 
"You're going on a completely made-up assumption"
 
"And the worst part is you have consistently demonstrated that you have no      
 interest in learning about the subjects you argue. You just stick your fingers    
 in your ears and make your ideological point over and over"
 
"If you really want to resort to such childish defenses."
 
"Incidentally, your beloved Greeks were big on homosexuality and especially    
paederasty."

     *Insulting again by calling them my "beloved Greeks"*
 
"Is it really impossible for you to make a logical argument instead of using    
such exaggerated language as a crutch?"
 
"Come back when you have your own and are finished with the
hysterical hand-waving."

I see why you you say that our feelings for eachother are irrelevant.
I have seen you try and stick your ideology into peoples faces just like
you calim that I do.

I do not answer questions like "You're being closed minded"
because such attacks are only accusations. If I answered them, you just
deny my answer, but you would apply logic to the denial of my answer
and I would do the same. And it would go back and forth without making
much of anything useful.

I found out that people don't like being bashed, and that they tend to not listed to
people who bash them. I am not even offended by your words, but I don't recomend 
them if you are really debating to help people "learn" but you only use these words to 
speak to those you disagree with. 

"but I think I've given you plenty of opportunities here and in the past to learn. You simply refused"

No, I found things wrong with your argument. So I did not follow you lead.
If I just accept whatever you say then that would make me a sheep. You don't want
others to think for themselves, you want them to follow you wherever you go without
a fight.

"I freely admit I don't have the patience rcarter2 does in explaining things"

Then why are you debating? Debates take time to type out and research.
It seems that you are not willing to defend your beleifs very deeply, but
I will go to the depths of your ideology. Are you afraid of me being correct
in the end? It is not fair to say that you're correct without going further.
You are no teacher. 

The details of everyone's beliefs are different. This is why I ask people to go so
indepth, rather than make a guess and have you bash me for it.
 
"I decided it was a waste of time to type out a lengthy explanation when you      
would pass it over with a one line response"

Thanks for the compliment. One line is ussually all it takes because there is
one key disagreeance in the statement. Are you afraid?
 
"At what point we call it a person is completely arbitrary"
 
"but there is simply no way that an egg with a sperm in it is equivalent to a    
fully-developed human being"

but, a child is not the same as an adult, but we do call it human. There are
certain states here in the united Federation that allow you to kill a baby after it
is born, perhaps because they believe that it has not reached a high enough level
of sentience to be declared human. I appreciate that you would not consent with
the killing of a young baby after birth and would only allow the killing of
what you identify as non human, as there are those who are completely heartless
about the matter, and believe that they should have the right to end the life of
their own baby. Just because they are the mother.

Here is a picture of a fetus:



You can already see features shared between it and an
adult human. This is a fetus at 12 weeks.

It is human because it was created by human sexuality.
It is Human offspring and kinship.
Would you take a chance with someone's life?
I know that you say that the identification of a human
is arbitrary.

Why take a chance with what could be a human?

I use your definitions in the manner you define them. In the case of when it is acceptable to kill a human being, you only said, and I quote: “if it is a human then you can't just kill it without a reason.” You never enumerated what that reason should be. By your own definition, any reason at all would be acceptable. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed a serious and realistic reason. If you want to be taken more seriously, put more thought into what you say.

Now the Bible bit again. You seem very confused. I think it’s because you’re trying to dissect my posts down into their individual sentences, and it’s making the entire thing disjointed and hard to follow. Whether or not the fetus is killed purposefully is never made clear. The implication, that the fetus is not the equivalent of a person, is clear. But bear in mind that this is the Bible, so clarity is not something to be expected. All versions of the Bible are manipulations, until you get to the originals. The point was simply that using religion as a justification for opposing abortion is no sure thing because religious texts are often interpreted subjectively. After all, plenty of Christians support a woman’s right to have an abortion.

And remind me next time not to bring up religion around you, because you seem determined to misunderstand every little thing I say on it. The inconsistency is, as I’ve said, that so many religious people seem determined to use their faith as a crutch against abortion rights. But the Bible actually says nothing about whether abortion is right or wrong. Some people interpret it in such a way that it does, but then as Nietzsche says, “There are no truths. Only interpretations.” I sincerely hope you know it well enough to understand that. That bit of Deuteronomy I’ve given you is the closest thing to a law regarding abortion you’re going to find. And it does not at all suggest abortion is equivalent to killing a person.

And yes, you certainly did bring up religion. Let me quote your own words back to you, in case your memory is lacking. When I told you the legality surrounding murder, you responded: “Incorrect. Religions use murder as a term for killing an innocent.” Now perhaps you were just tossing that in as a useful piece of trivia in order to further my learning. In that case, I apologise for bringing it up, because you clearly have no religious basis for opposing abortion.

Now onto your damaged ego. Yes, I’ve certainly been dismissive of you in the past. In my defence, your posts were extremely illogical and poorly thought-out, as I went on to explain. Some of the mental leaps you’ve posted have genuinely confounded me, and it doesn’t help that you never elaborate on your points in any detail. At the same time, I have given you remarkable patience in going over your posts where many would refuse, and responding to them. I have explained points in long and painstaking detail, and watched you dismiss them without any consideration at all, or deliberately miss the point. That offends me too, but I don’t complain that my feelings are being hurt, I simply point out how you are being ridiculous. You can take it or leave it. I’m not here to placate you. This is a forum for debate and discussion. The entire point is to give your opinions on matters. If you can’t handle that, why post?

It’s funny that you would talk about research and being in-depth, when you seem allergic to either of those things. When was the last time you made a reasoned argument and explained it in detail, as opposed to just “well heres what i believe and when you dont agree i am going to whine about it”. You don’t even understand how to make a proper argument, and you’re complaining about mine? It’s a sad day indeed.

Now lastly, a child is indeed different from an adult, but both a child and an adult are persons. A fetus is not, and a fertilized egg most certainly is not. As for states allowing the killing of a baby, I don’t know enough about those laws to into them. Under the right circumstances, for instance if the baby is born brain dead, it is perfectly acceptable. Allowing the killing of babies is a slippery slope, but I suspect that there’s more to these laws than what you are claiming. Oh, and a picture of a fetus is a meaningless emotional appeal. Most fetuses are nowhere near that developed when aborted. Even if they are, you aren’t going to find any sympathy from me. It still is not sentient. Here’s another fetus that looks very human. Except it’s a dog fetus. Yeah, mammalian fetuses tend to all look very similar. Whether a fetus is human is arbitrary. Whether it’s a person is clear.

While I'm libertarian on many issues and I don't want the government messing around in the private lives of others, this is one where I demand radical government intervention. At conception (through whatever means), we have a new human individual and he/she should be protected. The difference between that single-cell human and myself is size. I would love if pregnant women who were seriously harming the child (drugs, alcohol, threatened abortion, etc.) were incarcerated until the child could live outside the womb, C-section, and release the mother. The mother will then pay child support to the state for the state to raise the child. Abortion should be punishable equal to murder laws (first, second, third, or fourth degree with circumstances). The fetus is a human. There is no "right to kill humans", and it should never be a privilege.

How is it so hard to use a condom or birth control pills? Or if you are drunk and stupid enough to ejaculate inside a woman if you don't want a kid, to get the morning after pill?

But yes, I agree. If somebody is stupid enough and cant take care of a child, the government should NOT FORBID them to get an abortion. Unless it is past three months. Then it is your own damn fault.

(Unless its your damn daughter or sister ofcource.)

What is my opinion on abortion?, well I feel abortion is wrong and or murder although in some instances such as rape, or incest I could see where abortion is justifiable. But overall I feel as though it is just wrong and is legalized murder. After all (in the United states) we all have certain unalienable rights which one of those rights are the right to LIFE and one individual shouldn't take it upon them selves to end another life which is what abortion does. Technically the fetus is alive growing and developing and what abortion does is it ends the fetus from developing thus killing it. So i'd say that qualify's abortion as murder, it ended the life of another human being which violated the fetus's unalienable rights to LIFE but in some states the fetus doesn't have any rights what so ever  since it isn't a "person" or "human" yet. Overall I find abortion to be murder and it should be illegal because it does take the life of another (helpless) human being.

Honestly.
What is this thread doing in a video game web site?

orionfoxgibson : What is your post doing in a thread about abortion in a debate section?

Txgangsta :
Simply put...
I wonder why a group of kids and adults that push buttons all day would have an opinion a subject that can cause heart attacks with adults.
Every time I hear the words "I'm late." I tremble with fear.
Thank you for your time.
Good Luck To ALL.
Peace.

orionfoxgibson :

Because we like to push our views on others even though they don't concern us maybe?

Traduweise :


     Not summoning me to continue the debate, or so that you can have the last
word? Are a afraid? Or are you going to respond to this by saying something like "No, it's
that you believe such ridiculous things that it's not worth my time to debate such a dunce"


"By your own definition, any reason at all would be acceptable. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed a serious and realistic reason. If you want to be taken more seriously, put more thought into what you say."

You know what I meant. It's unfair how you expect everyone to use exact words all the time like this.


"If you want to be taken more seriously, put more thought into what you say"

Like this?

     Traduwiese also said:

"the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry
against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is   punished by
death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the
different between a fetus and a person)"

     But then he said:

"But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you  
please."

At first you say the the "Goat Herders" understand that it's just a fetus,
then you say that it's a religious inconsistency to suggest that killing a fetus  
is not murder.


"Now the Bible bit again. You seem very confused. Whether or not the fetus is killed purposefully
is never made clear. The implication, that the fetus is not the equivalent of a person, is clear"

No, if you kill someone on accident, you penalty is much less than if you had you had done it on purpose.
What if the person is only trying to harm the mother? Not the child in the womb. The assaulter may not even be 
trying to kill anyone, he could just be upset, and is trying to hit the woman.
If you kill a person on accident, you are not given the penalty of premeditated murder. You aren't going to
get any help from the Bible here.


"And remind me next time not to bring up religion around you, because you seem determined to misunderstand every little thing I say on it"

           Traduwiese also said:

     "the punishment for assaulting a pregnant woman and causing her to miscarry
     against her will is only a fine (Whereas killing another person is   punished by
     death, thus demonstrating that even goat-herders 4000 years ago understood the
     different between a fetus and a person)"
   
          But then he said:

     "But that's just another religious inconsistency for you to deal with as you  
     please."

       At first you say the the "Goat Herders" understand that it's just a fetus,
       then you say that it's a religious inconsistency to suggest that killing a fetus  
       is not murder.
   
           And there's more:
 
      "As for the whole miscarriage/abortion debacle from the Bible, you don't actually 
      know that the fetus wasn't killed purposefully. You're just making baseless 
      assumptions."

          Who made the assumption that the fetus was killed purposefully here in the first place?
      But what does Traduweise say below?

      "Now the Bible bit again. You seem very confused. Whether or not the fetus is killed purposefully
      is never made clear."

          So you at first assume that the fetus is killed purposefully then you say that it is never made
     clear on whether the fetus is killed purposefully or not.

     Who is the one that misunderstands the religious stuff here?


"When I told you the legality surrounding murder, you responded: 'Incorrect. Religions use murder as a term for killing an innocent.' "

"you clearly have no religious basis for opposing abortion."


I wasn't trying to use religion as a means to say that abortion is wrong. I was just pointing out that murder is not just a legal term.
That's all.


"Now onto your damaged ego. Yes, I’ve certainly been dismissive of you in the past. In my defence, your posts were extremely illogical and poorly thought-out, as I went on to explain. Some of the mental leaps you’ve posted have genuinely confounded me, and it doesn’t help that you never elaborate on your points in any detail. At the same time, I have given you remarkable patience in going over your posts where many would refuse, and responding to them. I have explained points in long and painstaking detail, and watched you dismiss them without any consideration at all, or deliberately miss the point. That offends me too, but I don’t complain that my feelings are being hurt, I simply point out how you are being ridiculous. You can take it or leave it. I’m not here to placate you. This is a forum for debate and discussion. The entire point is to give your opinions on matters."

     You can give out your opinion without bashing other individuals. You're not here to debate, your just here to impose you idea's on
others. I've seen your posts, just see what I've copy and pasted above. You tell me that my feelings shouldn't be hurt, then you admit that
your feelings are being hurt, you just won't admit it. I see that you do not consider a "fetus" a person. But i disagree with the grounds that
you have laid to suggest that it is not a person. Do I need to copy and paste the same "extremely illogical and poorly thought-out" things that
you have said? I've already done it twice above. I've got you right where I want you right now. I'm not letting go. You even decided to not summon
me in an attempt to make an escape.

     I think that you've misunderstood my points. Calling it my "Damaged ego" I only want to ensure a person the right to live.


     "Now lastly, a child is indeed different from an adult, but both a child and an adult are persons
A fetus is not, and a fertilized egg most certainly is not"

What is the difference? sentience? You already said:

" I said a person is sentient or has the capacity for sentience, so
even a person in a coma will usually qualify "

This would leave some people out of the equation.

Are your grounds for denying a fetus as a person the fact that it
is not as complicated? Children are not as complicated as adults.
Is abortion not the bullying of those who are weaker than ourselves,
Those who are created by our own sexuality, our own kinship, our own offspring?
Would we deny someone rights because they cannot defend themselves?
Would we even deny those created by our own acts of reproduction by
not even calling them one of us? They cannot even vote against such actions.
But neither can Children, yet we vote looking out for their future, but even that is
slipping away, as the United Federation has gotten into so much debt. Who
will pay for it? Our own children. Is it fair to deny life to our own kinship
because of it's lower complexity? Would we not be bullies, looking out for
only our own well being, that we should not even look out for our neighbor? Our offspring even?
We'll spend at least a couple thousand sending the coast guard out to sea to
rescue someone who has landed in the icy waters. The people who fly out
to sea to rescue those who have fallen into the sea even risk their own lives to do so.
Because every human life is precious. But people have become much m ore interested
in themselves. I saw at least on Abortion doctor admit that if he found a young lady that
didn't have a reason to get an abortion that he would give her one so that he could make
some money. Have people not grieved their miscarriages even if the "fetus" has passed
away at an extremely early stage?



"At what point we call it a person is completely arbitrary"

"Whether a fetus is human is arbitrary. Whether it’s a person is clear."

Is it arbitrary, or clear? Do you care about others, or would you decide to
define someone as something to make things easier on the rest of us?



     There once was a noble in a kingdom. The noble owed the king 100,000 pence.
The king ordered the scribes to bring out the financial records to see where all his
money was at. Upon realizing the massive debt of the Noble, he ordered for the noble
to be brought before him. The king charged the noble with the debt, which he could not pay.
So what did the king say to the noble?

"For this I shall put you into my dungeon until your debts are payed!"

     But the noble begged for forgiveness for his transgressions. The King pittied him and his family,
he forgave the nobles debt and let him go free.

     Now, the noble was out and about in the market place and saw a poor man who owed him 10 pence.
The Noble walked up behind the man, and as the poor man turned around, the noble grabbed him by the
collar and said to him:

"Now pay me the 10 pence that you owe, or else I shall throw you into the dungeon until
your debt is paid!"

But the poor man will say:

"But my lord! I do not have it! But I will satisfy your debt in-"

"Fool!"

And the noble will say to his guards:

"Take him away, lock him in the dungeon until his debt is payed!"

     And his guards will obey, but is it righteous what the noble has done?
What will the king do when he finds out? Indeed, the king will be enraged. He
will summon the noble again and say to him:

"Surely I forgave your 100,000 pence debt, but you would not forgive the small
debt of the poor man! For this, you shall be thrown in the dungeon, and the poor man
will go free!"

Are we righteous people, that we should kill our own offspring because they
are an inconvenience to us? When we were once so ourselves? Shall we even
kill our own children after they are born because they are not as developed as an
adult? Will this be what we believe someday? You may have grandchildren someday who
will fight for such "rights" and you may tell them that it is an evil thing that ought not be so.
But will they ignore you pleas on account of their ease? For everyone will do what is easiest on
them, but pick a righteous man, will he do what is easy, or what is right? Will he ignore his neighbor,
let alone his own offspring when they need help?

orinfoxgibson:

Since politics can be such a prominent subject, maybe it's
good to have a place where us gamers can talk about it. XD

Sword legion : I don't know what you're talking about. I responded to your post. You can either respond or not; it's your decision. I check the forum every so often to see if people have responded to my posts. You should do the same if you're worried about not getting the "last word".

See you're still trying to go in-depth on a Biblical passage written thousands of years ago. Laws was simpler back then, which is why motive was not discussed. If you kill someone, you are in turn killed. They don't discuss motive, and they don't discuss any distinctions between premediated and heat-of-the-moment actions. In other words, intent doesn't matter and if it did, they would have said so. You're trying to apply 21st century logic to a BC case. Give it up.

I am indeed here to debate, discuss, et cetera. I've been insulted in just about every imaginable manner and called a wide variety of unpleasant slurs ranging from racial to sexual to personal, all directly to my face. I can assure you that nothing you have said has hurt my feelings, and I doubt anything will. But I'm not the one complaining about being insulted at every turn, am I? You not only cultivate a strong persecution complex, you use it as a shield. Oh, and I don't know what a "summon" is. It's your responsibility to respond to threads you are interested in. If you care, make the effort like I do.

I said nothing about complexity being a distinction, although it certainly could be. I said sentience or the capacity for sentience. That includes people in comas, although not in a persistent vegetative states. A fertilized egg is not a person. It cannot sense, it cannot feel, it has no capacity for thought or consciousness. It cannot understand life and death any more than a sperm cell and an egg. Neither can a zygote. Or a fetus. A fetus, however may still be a human being. That's a matter of genetics. But it's not a person. When a person is lost, we lose a part of society. We lose someone who had ideas, emotions, convictions. Someone who could perceive the world. An egg can't do those things. Nor can an egg with a sperm in it. Nor can a zygote. Et cetera.

As for the rest of your impassioned plea, it's midly touching, but nothing more. Sophistry is generally unconvincing, especially badly-conceived sophistry. I could always tell you various stories about the many women who have had their lives saved because they were not forced to carry a baby to term, because they weren't forced to ruin their lives through unwanted pregnancy, to say nothing of caring for babies they didn't want. I don't do those sorts of things because I dislike using emotional appeals. They always feel manipulative and dishonest. Abortion is first and foremost a matter of rights, namely the right to bodily sovereignty. I have yet to see a pro-lifer not avoid that point.

Traduweise :

"Abortion is first and foremost a matter of rights, namely the right to bodily sovereignty. I have yet to see a pro-lifer not avoid that point."

The right to bodily sovereignty is forfeit during pregnancy because there is another body which perishes otherwise. "Get it out" is not acceptable. That is the fetus's home.

The "get it out" logic is the same claim that American white supremacists make at American blacks. Their cry is instead "Go back to Africa". This is there home. "Get it out" is not acceptable.

well since there rape / incest?

i'd have to say abortion is okay
i dont like the idea of it but yeahh. tough one.. lol

Txgangsta : I don't know why you felt it so necessary to bump a dead thread, but I'll bite.

Your logic is inexplicable and nonsensical. Rights do not simply disappear. I do not have to sacrifice my well-being to save someone else. Neither does a pregnant woman. Trying to compare abortion rights and bodily sovereignty to white supremacy is just mind-boggling. I own my body. I do not own my country. If you cannot grasp the distinction between a human being and a massive piece of land, I am at a loss.