Nice try DJ, but those you mentioned are not dependant on people by force. Those who take care of them choose to do so. There is a choice there, which you fail to see.

You don't get to choose for me, live with it.

But the end result is still the same - those who are taken care of by another, and have their everyday decisions (including living or dying) dictated by another human being(s).

I don't get to choose for you. But God most certainly will end up judging you. The consequences of which, my friend, are far worse than any choice I could ever make for you.

Best,
Double-J

I shall have placed a fine champagne in the cellar alongside one that I have for the day that Castro dies. I will heartily raise my glass towards both occassions.

No, I still don't think these two scenarios are comparable.

Of course, I'm the one who is responsible for my actions, not you. With our choices we will be judged, and anyone who can't choose isn't worthy of the reward or punishment. I acknowledge this and I think you need to worry about your own choices and actions. I don't judge you, and it is not your place to judge my actions.

Sorry, Plaw, but science is not on your side. Your idea of "not being a human being, a person, or even a baby" doesn't stand up. From the time of conception, a baby has 46 chromosomes, which is the unique genetic signature of a human being. All of its DNA, its genomes, are all in place. There is no question of what it is growing into.By your logic, this means that children themselves aren't humans, because, after all, they aren't fully grown and developed.

Arguing about when life begins certainly does rationalize and trivialize the subject - otherwise, it forces abortionists to admit they are killing a living human being. By concocting some non-scientific argument about how life "doesn't begin until after birth" is not only factually incorrect but, when used for the purpose of promoting infanticide, morally reprehensible.

Again, you are wholly incorrect when you say that a baby (or "fetus" or "zygote" or whatever stage in development you wish to say) is a "completely unique organism," because it is not. Why are premature babies "humans" then? Wouldn't they be some other, alien life form, by this logic?

I have to say Plaw, I'm suprised you'd be willing to make such bold, unsubstantiated statements, especially when the facts are against you.

Cheers,
Double-J [/b][/quote]”Cheers” to you too, Double J.

Shortly after conception it looks like a human being, too.

So why do they call it a fetus? Why give it a special name?

Why don't you consider male sperm to be partially human as well? Isn't it? Aren't some of the chromosomes there? Isn't it partially human in relation to a fetus the same way a fetus is in relation to a baby that can survive on it's own?

Yeah, all of its chromosomes and whatever are in place, but the fact is (to me, anyway) that what makes it uniquely a human being is its ability to survive on its own outside the womb, not a bunch of chromosomes that are in place the instant that conception takes place and we're talking about something smaller than a pin head.

And no, by my logic I am not saying that "children themselves aren't humans, because, after all, they aren't fully grown and developed."

Children can live outside of the womb.

By your logic a single spermatozoa is a human life because it can eventually develop into a person under the right set of conditions.

And I find it interesting, BTW, how a bible-thumper like you can tell me how science isn’t in my side in how a choose to define what a human being is or isn’t – you who believe in the biblical story of creation which has no scientific basis in fact whatsoever.

I mean, believe it if you want to, that’s up to you, but don’t go quoting me science when it’s convenient for you to do so and then tell me about the biblical story of creation..

This debate is and always has been about when does a fetus become an actual baby, human being, or whatever you wish to call it.

No one – myself included – wants to murder babies.

Aborting fetuses is another matter.

There’s nothing unsubstantiated about any of my statements. A bit “bold” perhaps, but that’s as far as I’ll go.

BTW, I was looking through one of the old abortion debate threads just a minute ago, and found it remarkable how we’re all saying almost exactly the same things now as we did then. Almost word for word in some cases.

But I noticed in one of them, Double-J, that you managed rather artfully to avoid the question of whether or not if you had a sister or daughter who was pregnant as a result of being raped you would expect her to see the pregnancy through regardless of her age and what psychological damage it might do to her.

Where is it written that because some people believe one thing they must automatically believe in another thing that may be similar?

Does everyone think in the wholly consistent way in which you suggest?

Is there something wrong if they don't?

If I'm liberal in my views on one issue, Must I be liberal in my views on all of them?

As far as your "example" goes.....

No, of course we should not go killing all of the old and infirm and disabled.

They are people. A fetus is not a "person".

Why even Apple says that a fetus is something that will "grow into a person."

Person already? Not a person yet?

Huge difference there, don't you think?

Well, actually come to think of it, I don't expect you to think there's a differnce....

Not sure exactly what you mean by that.

Yes,I'm saying that the ends justify the means.

Like there's something wrong with that?

We do it all the time, don't we?

Doesn't the right argue that the war in Iraq is a case of the ends justifying the means?

Personally, and I know that not everyone will agree with me on this one, but I find the telephone solicitations that I get to contribute to various charities and such to be rather annoying.

I would much prefer to see something like research for diabetes and other diseases to be fully funded by the government, with everyone paying their fair share through taxes.

But I put up with the phone calls and the junk mail because I figure that they need the money, so the ends justify the means.

Aren't the abridgements of some of our civil liberties in the name of "The War on Terror" a means to justify the ends?

When we have in place in this country a welfare system that encourages young women to have more babies out of wedlock so they can increase the size of their welfare benefits, isn't giving them this money an unsatisfactory means to a necessary end, because otherwise their children might die of malnutrition?

Listen, the idea of abortion doesn't thrill me or make me happy.

I see perfectly clearly the arguments against it, and some of them are quite logical.

But IMO it's a means to a better end than the consequences of not having legalized abortion.

Now, as far as "who decides" what is in the "greater good"....

Society does, through their laws and the actions of their government.

I happen to believe that our government was instrumental in covering up for the real perpetrators JFK assassination, but they did so because they thought that the greater good was in not having us know the truth.

This whole business going on now with this UAE company taking over the operation of some of our ports:

Bush is now saying that it's important that we show our Arab allies in the "War on Terror" that we trust them, and this is one way to do it.

Well, I agree. We should show our Arab allies in the "War on terror" that we trust them. That's an admirable end.

But I don't like the means. Do you?

What if she doesn't believe in God or Allah? Will she still be judged?

Sure she will.

Just because you don't believe in something or someone... that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Like Santa Claus, for instance...

Apple

Well, IMO, things like god and allah only exist for those who believe in it. For you god exist, you don't even have to believe in it, it just exists for you. For me it doesn't, yet.
That's because I see religion as something that provides ethical codes, as something that give structure to a human's life, and as something that helps to explain unexplainable things.
If you are ready for that thing called religion, then you grow in a process towards that particular religion.

That's why I'm agnostic, and not atheistic. Not only because of my 'definition' of religion, but also because being atheistic shows little respect for the religious feelings of people.

Only IMO, of course.

But hey, why am I boring people with my views on religion? Sorry for the trouble.

I like your choice of the word, 'yet'.

Anyway, we'll ALL find out on Judgement Day!!!



Apple

I tought you would.
I'm not religious now, but I don't exclude the possibility of being it, somewhere in the future.

I respect your POV, Enzo.

I too am not really what you would term 'religious'. But I do think it's important for most to be raised in and have a 'Faith'...whether Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc....because that is what provides a person with a 'base' a core of beliefs, teachings that stay with them throughout life.

Some people follow the faith they were raised in, some rebel against it (and possibly return to it years later), some people convert to another faith that they feel better suits their beliefs. Whatever, all of it I believe is better than being raised with no faith at all.

Until I had my daughter, I hadn't been to mass for many years. However I believe it is one of my duties as a parent to pass along to her, or provide her with our Catholic religioun to at least partially form that 'base'.
She will decide as a young adult what to do with it, whether or not she believes in a 'God' she'll never see...but I've got to give her that choice to make.

I had to laugh (with pity) at a former co-worker who began attending mass on Sundays to try & expose his daughters to their faith. After a few months, he, his wife and daughters decided to stop going to church because it didn't 'do anything for them'. What this poor fellow and his wife didn't understand what that it's not just a matter of physically showing up at church and waiting for it to 'do something' for you. It's not a matter of going through the motions...it's a matter of having a faith. I mostly felt sorry for the daughters, since it looks like they will not have that faith...unless they find it themselves later in life.

Well, now I've bored everybody...that's life!!!

Apple

Battery on my laptop died last night, and I didn't get a chance to join the discussion until now. First of all, may I congratulate each and every one of us for presenting our arguments in a rational and civil manner? I think that this is a sensitive issue, and that it could easily have slid into something ugly, and I am glad to see that it didn't.

First, to Part, you took my quote about Planned Parenthood completely out of context. Yes, they do offer abortions or abortion referrals as one aspect of their services. HOWEVER, the mission of the agency is to prevent (and forgive me if I'm repeating myself, but I obviously must) unplanned pregnancies through education and counseling. They also provide an array of gynecological medical services. And to those patients who are already pregnant, they offer an array of options, one of which is abortion.

As for abortions, I do not believe that they are a matter of convenience, and I disagree with anyone who treats them as such. They should not be a form of birth control. But since women can get pregnant against their will or desire, and since half of the divorced fathers in this country don't pay their child support, then I believe that abortion must continue to be an avenue for women.

As a rape survivor, which thankfully didn't result in a pregnancy, I feel that I can speak for the women out there who find it necessary to abort such a pregnancy. There are very few men who can understand the humiliation, shame and terror that goes hand in hand with such a crime. And those that do, still don't have to deal with the fact that they might be pregnant as the result of such an attack. To expect any woman, be it your wife, daughter, or a complete stranger, to carry and nurture the offspring of such a crime, and to allow your attacker parental rights, doesn't have a great deal of empathy or compassion, IMO. And since rape can be a difficult crime to prove, then I will support Roe v. Wade and do all in my power to keep it in place.

Yeah, now I think about it... A three page debate about a difficult subject, and no flame wars.

We must've grown up!

You never bore me.

Why do "most" people need religion to teach them a base core of beliefs?

I have them, I fairly certain my child has them, my parents had them, and not because of nay exposeure to religion.

In fact, I know dozens of people just in my circle of acquaintances alone that have them without hardly ever practicing any religion at all, or none at all.

"Do unto others..." is a real good start, and I'm certain that people figured that one out a long time ago, notwithstanding the fact that it comes from the bible.

And even if it does, so what?

That's an arugment for the necessity of religion?

Is a belieft in God a necessary part of that "core of beliefs", and if so, why?

SB, I too am a rape survivor and though I can also be thankful it did not result in a pregnancy, I'm afraid you cannot speak for me.

For while the crime was taking place and I was praying every moment that not only would I live through this but would also not end up pregnant...I also cannot honestly say that I would have found an abortion 'necessary'. I don't know if I'd have kept the baby and tried to raise it, or given it up for adoption. A pregnancy didn't occur, so I just don't know. I am glad for you though, that you seem to know exactly what YOU would have done had you become pregnant.

It was so long ago and I rarely think about it and really do not know how I would've proceeded if a pregnancy had resulted. However, the abortion matter aside...people are different and react differently to certain matters, even life-altering events such as this. We will never know how many adopted and happy children are the product of a rape. I do not and never have spoken for other rape victims in any way whatsoever and I tend to get a bit 'irked' when another rape survivor decides they are at liberty to speak for all the rest.

Yes, yes...I realize that in your post you do not actually speak for 'all rape victims', but those who have found abortion necessary. But since you were, after all, spared such a wrenching decision, I'm really not even sure you can speak for them.

Apple

I would also ask all of the abortion critics the same question that I asked Double-J:

Is your position against abortion so strong that it would include rape and incest victims?

Would it include wanting your sister or daughter to see a pregnancy through if it were the result of a rape, regardless of her age or the psychological damage it might cause her?

And, I would add these:

How can you men who are anti-abortion be so certain that you would feel the same way you do about the issue if you were a woman?

And if you do believe that you would feel the same way if you were a woman, how can you be certain that you'd feel the same way if you were a woman who was now impregnated as the result of a rape?

You can't, of course, be certain what you'd believe you know.

Your beliefs are a product of many things, not the least of which is gender, I believe.

Apple, perhaps I need to clarify my position. When I said that I feel I can speak, what I meant was that as such a survivor, I feel the necessity to have abortion as an option. The new South Dakota law bans all abortions, even for victims of rape and incest. And even if it did have such a provision, since rape is such a difficult crime to prove, I believe that such a provision would be meaningless anyway. My point was that every woman should have the right to make her own choice under such circumstances, and if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then that choice is taken away from us.

I think abortion views and abortion views when it comes to law have to be split up.

Obviously as SB said, it's a very hard and long process to prove rape, but I am okay with abortions in the case of rape.
Incest would be easier to prove I assume, and I am okay with abortions in that case.

I am not okay with the "my boyfriend doesn't want to wear a condom so if I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion" or "my boyrfriend broke my cd player and I had an abortion to get back at him" (exact words spoken from a girl behind me in class last year)

My point being, how can you pass a law that would say it's okay to have an abortion in x,y,z cases but not in a,b,c cases when 90% of the cases are hard to prove. Obviously my views on abortion will not change because of a law or lack of a law but maybe as new technology is created new laws could be passed.

Not here for a debate, but just for the sake of throwing it out there, aren't there morning-after pills one can take to eliminate impregnation? Not sure if it's one of those works 99% of the time deals though.

That kind of mindset is the very problem...that so many see it as a 'woman's choice' and not the ending of an innocent life.

While 'under such circumstances' as the result of a rape, many women might want to abort...Roe v. Wade was not limited to THOSE circumstances. So now, any woman who chooses to can go and get an abortion. For whatever reason. Don't want to interrupt their 'career'; not ready to raise kids; too many kids already, it's not a boy; it's not a girl; just broke up with the bum who's the father, don't want any reminders of the jerk...the reasons are endless. And the reasons don't matter. If you want an abortion and you have the fee, you can get one.

While a decision in ONE state as I said is a far cry from Roe v. Wade being overturned, and though a fight is promised from Planned Parenthood it is hopefully one of the first steps in what will probably be a years long process.

Just like smoking laws, just like gay marriage laws, just like so many that have come before...this will become a State-by-State issue and will eventually make its way to the Supreme Court (as it did in the late 1980's when the choice went again back to the individual states).

But...glad you 'clarified' your position, SB !!

Apple

Boy, you sure had me fooled, DM.

All this time I thought you were taking hard courses.

If someone was in a class that you were in that was dumb enough to do that, and then act even dumber by telling people that she did, then the course couldn't have been too difficult if she was in it.

I'm glad that you don't view the issue as black or white as some do.

And, as I have stated, I'm not in favor of abortion as a method of birth control.

But what do you do in a case where a 15-year old gets pregnant and says

"If I can get an abortion I will, but if I can't I want to keep my baby so I can go on welfare and start collecting some money"?

Boy, you sure had me fooled, DM.

All this time I thought you were taking hard courses.

If someone was in a class that you were in that was dumb enough to do that, and then act even dumber by telling people that she did, then the course couldn't have been too difficult if she was in it. [/b][/quote]I believe it was a gen-ed course so taking it wouldn't refelct on me :p

That issue isn't black or white either, if the mother wanted to go on welfare to truly receive money to take care of the baby then I am for it. But as we know that isn't always the case so it's very hard to say what to do.

In the same respect, I know of 2 maybe 3 people so far that have had abortions in their teens and now are going to counseling or psychiatrists (that the state pays for) becuase they can't handle what they did. So my feelings are if it is a consensual pregnancy and state money has to be spent in either case (welfare to support the baby or tax dollars going towards counseling) I would be all for welfare.

I sort of avoid this topic because it is so sensitive and there are strong views on each side, but SB & Apple struck a chord of understanding in me.

This is one issue where I find myself on the "conservative" side, believe it or not. I always consider myself pro-life. IMO, abortion should not be used as birth control, and performed simply to "get rid" of a pregnancy of inconvenience.

On the other hand, I too am a "attempted" rape survivor being attacked by two men when I was twenty years old. (I don't want to relive the details here, but trust me when I say that pregnancy was a possibility, although very remote.) During that heartwrenching time, I thought of nothing else except reliving that horror and asking "what if I am pregnant"

While pregnancy never occurred thankfully, I had decided that I could "not" have an abortion, had that turned out to be the case. Had it happened, and I did get pregnant, I don't know if I would have changed my mind. I can only say I gave it serious thought.

That being said, I can "understand" in rape/incest why a woman would have an abortion. So, does that still make me pro-life? It does kind of make sense that how can you say x, y & z are ok, but not abc. It's still life inside of you.

Just a side note...fetus, baby?? I don't know. However, when I saw my grandughters' sonogram with arms/legs and movement, it is a baby to me.

I hope I'm not sorry for giving even this much out of my personal life, but something told me to weigh in.

TIS

Facts:
1)All cells excepting sperms and eggs have the 46 (or 23 pairs) of chromosomes. Including hair, skin and whatnot that you don't mind losing. sperms and eggs have just 23 chromosomes and need to pair up with each other to get 46 chromosomes
2)There are stem cells, that have the capability to form living humans. They are used for cloning. They do not have to come from sperms or eggs. So the theory of eggs fertilizing with sperm loses its meaning.
3)The embryo is definitely human embryo. After 9 months, a giraffee would not come out. But the human quality of embryo is just the same as what one would find in any human cell. They consume energy, divide and carry DNA(chromosome) of humans.

DJ, you are free to interpret what you want, consistent with your beliefs. But scientific ananlysis is not trivial for me. It makes me understand things without bias. It is okay if you do not appreciate this fact. I am glad that Plaw found this approach pertinent.
Snake, I don't know if you meant to generalize, but none of my scientific arguments are to support any "left" views. They are my views, I don't even care if they are "left" or "right".

Take heart, TIS...if SB (especially SB who mention her personal story first) and I aren't 'sorry', then neither should you be.



Apple

Since we're getting personal here, Apple....

Is your position against abortion so strong that it would include rape and incest victims?

Would it include wanting your sister or daughter or even friend to see a pregnancy through if it were the result of a rape, regardless of her age or the psychological damage it might cause her?

The reason I ask is because when it doesn't include rape or incest, then I can at least see the logic in your position.

But if you do include rape and incest victims among those that should be denied an abortion, I can't.

I approve (and hope for) the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade...precisely because it DOESN'T limit the legality of abortion to rape/incest victims. As stated, anyone can get an abortion for whatever reason they like.

If it is eventually overturned, and a rape/incest victim does seek an abortion and it is that important to her, then she will have to find a way to get one. Otherwise, she will have to make the decision to give up the child for adoption or keep and raise it.

These kinds of tragedies occurred long before Roe v. Wade...and they will occur long after. I do not feel that it is a reason to keep Roe v. Wade from being overturned.

I knew I'd hear from you eventually, plawrence...your attempts at trick questions and/or backing others into a corners or 'if you were the friend/family member of...' do not impress me, nor have they ever. I've listened to too much Sean Hannity, he uses the same tactics in his interviews and they are neither creative nor very effective.

Nice try, though.

Apple

I hate the act of an abortion.

However, I feel it shouldn't be banned, nor should it be used as a form of birth control (though it usually is).

This is a tough subject.

I figure, what good is illegalizing it? It only does two things. First of all, forces women to have an unwanted child. That's never good, and our orphanages are crowded as it is. We can't just expect them not to have intercourse, it's too easy to do it. There are too many people who enjoy it. Another thing, the system (like many other systems in this country), will be manipulated. While the procedure may be essential to one woman's life (a rape victim, for instance), it might not be available to her where as it would work for somebody less deserving.

Plus you always have the possibility of black market abortions, which is even worse and more evil than the procedure in a sterile environment.

Anyway, those are a few factors to consider before making any concrete decisions.