You are acting like the difference is between night and day. It's not. The difference in saftey is negligible. The danger to the baby, however, is in fact, night and day.

I never said that it was. You have been intentionally discounting the risks of abortion to argue that its drastically safer for the mother, but in any regular pregnancy there's no reasonable difference worth justifying taking a life. (Of course, there are plenty of exceptions, if the baby's exisistance jeopardizes a woman's life, abortion is okay)

You could make it out to be like getting an appendix out, but a tooth pulled? Your kidding, right? Its surgery, and it could kill you. Its not quite as dangerous as childbirth, but let's face it healthy women with healthy unborn children don't abort because they're scared they might die in childbirth.

There are many, many, things that can go wrong in abortion.

Again, same 2 points. Women don't have abortions because they are scared of the slightly higher risk of childbirth over abortion, and the difference is minimal.



That's exactly the point. If a baby can live on its own, it doesn't need its mother to surrvive. If the mother doesn't want to carry it around, fine take it out, but if you kill it when it sustains life, its murder (even under your logic, until you change it)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Whether you like it or not, the woman has the authority to choose.

Under law she does. But How can you justify killing a baby that could just as easily be removed from its mother and live? It doesn't rely on its mother to live, Its no less aware of itself as a newly born baby, its no less succeptible to pain as a newly born baby.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Aborting a fetus that could survive on it's own would be a late term abortion. Late term abortions are very rare.

Manslaughter is rare too. That doesn't mean we should make it legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Pro lifers would have us believe they occur everyday, and they don't. 95% of abortions are performed in the first twelve weeks, the others, late term abortions, are usually performed due to a risk to the mother, or fetal defect.

The key word here is usually. When abortion has a good reason behind it, it should be done. However, "I don't want a baby right now" isn't a good reason. Adoption was invented for a reason (as were contraceptives, and the concept of not having sex). Besides, usually isn't good enough. Usually innocent babies that are indisernable from born babies are not killed, is not a statement I would go around proclaiming to demonstrate the goods of our society.

It could always be worse, I could say that you believe in the death-penalty when you don't.



Whoops. I take my last statment back. When did I ever say I supported the death penalty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde So I take it a fetus is worth a lot more than an actual 'born' person?

Well, I'll bite. A fetus (unborn baby) is innocent. Even if it was conceived by rape (Around 3% of abortions are of this variety) the baby did nothing wrong. It merely existed. In the death penalty, society decides to kill people based off of their actions. Whether society has the authority to decide who should be killed is definatley up for an argument. However, I find it interesting that you would rather have the right to murder innocent babies over the right to murder convicted murderers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Here's a story for you:

*Gets Milk, Cookies, and Ba-Ba*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde A woman is pregnant, she wants to abort, but you change her mind, telling her she'd be killing her baby if she did, and that child has a right to life.

Well, that is the concept of abortion, killing a baby...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde She has the baby, and suddenly you don't care about that child anymore.

Why do I seem so evil in this alternate reality? I would probably care about the baby until it grew up old enough to be annoying, sheesh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Why should you? It's been born, and that is all that matters.

I'm interested in defending its rights. Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness. Therefore I really should care about the child, not sure why I don't but I'll take your word for it, and want to see that child be free and have the ability to pursue what he decides is happiness.

(By The Way, when I use he to describe hypothetical babies, its not because I assume all babies (or children) are male, its that in english he is used when you aren't sure of the gender of what you discuss)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde You don't need to trouble yourself with that child anymore.

I never realized the monster that I really am... I just keep getting worse and worse in this story.

*covers ba-ba's ears*

okay, continue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Time passes, the child grows up and commits murder. Suddenly, you are wanting to see that person executed for their crimes.

And in this alternate reality, I support the death penalty. Hmmm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde See the point here?

You tell bizzare stories to make a point you could summarize in two sentences? I got my ba-ba out for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Pro lifers only care about the fetus when it is inside the mother. Once it is born, they don't give a crap.

Where did you get this bizzare idea? Republicans are a party that is Pro-Life and supports the Death Penalty, but I'm not a Republican, and not all republicans support the death penalty (also not all people who are pro-life are republicans)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde If you believe in the right to life, you believe in the right to ALL life. No matter if someone has commited a crime. All life is valuble, and the location of that fetus/person should not be an issue.

Well my main argument against abortion is that it is killing a baby who has done nothing. Babies that are aborted define innocence. While I'm not for the death penalty, I would say that its better than abortion for two reasons.

1. Not nearly as many people are killed according to the death penalty as are killed by abortions

2. The people who are killed according to the death penalty are being held accountable for actions that they took, babies are innocent.



fetuses can feel pain. You think the nervous system suddenly bursts into being after a baby is born?

Babies aren't a part of someone else's body, they are their own body inside another person's body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde You cannot compare someone like yourself (to use you as an example) to a fetus. You are completley different.

Yes, I think therefore I am. Oops, unborn babies can think too. Hmm. I give up, your going to have to find something that defines a baby that is a person and a baby that isn't a person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde A fetus may have brain waves, so I will say that technically, it is alive.

Whooza!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde If it wasn't alive, it couldn't be born alive. Having said that, because the fetus is inside the womans body, using her body to survive, and because it cannot survive outside the womb, the woman has the authority to abort.

But earlier you said that babies that could survive outside the womb don't have a right to life anyway? Could you pick an argument and stick with it? Every time you change your argument, I have to change my counter-argument, and I'm really lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Brain waves may matter to some people, and they are important, but only for those people who have actually been born. The fact that a fetus may have brain waves simply shows it's brain is developing, which is what we'd expect. It doesn't mean the fetus can live on it's own, or breath on it's own, nor does it mean the fetus is aware of it's surroundings, or whether it can feel pain. Brain waves don't determine this, they simply show whether a brain is active.

That's absurd. Babies don't grow nervous systems during labor. Unborn babies can feel pain. Brain activity shows that Unborn babies can think. They may not be self-aware, but neither are babies that have recently been born. I don't know about you, but I can't remember anything before I was at least 2 or 3. That doesn't mean my mother could have killed me before then.

As for breathing and living on one's own, the only way to know for sure would be to take the baby out without killing the poor thing. If you admit that these instances of babies which could live on their own are people, then you would have to conceed abortion as something that needs to be stopped. When companies come out with new drugs or chemicals that kill a few people every so often, there are cries of outrage from around the country, why doesn't this apply to abortion?

A father has no choice in whether the mother has an abortion or not. Its that simple. A father could say edgewise, just as someone about to be raped could, however, its irrelevant because the final say can ignore everything.

I have stated my arguement here many times, it's not my fault if you can follow it.

Unborn babies cannot think, nor can newborn babies. A fetus doesn't think 'Well (*)(*)(*)(*), time to get borned now!' does it? Nope. A newborn baby doesn't think 'Gee, time for a feed, I think I'll cry and mum'll come', does it? Nope again. There may be a brain, but it isn't thinking in the true sense of the word. Nor is it aware.
Unborn babies can only begin to feel some degree of pain later in pregnancy, around week 24. Before that time, their brain is simply not developed enough for them to have the capacity to feel pain.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

And the physical and emotional welfare of the mother comes first. Always. Fetus comes last.

The justification for 'taking a life' is simple: The woman does not wish to be pregnant, and excercises her right to abortion.
What does abortion have to do with pro lifers? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned, yet they continually think they have the right to stick their noses in.

I compare abortion to having a tooth pulled as a ways of comparing risk. Abortion is virtually risk free.

And again, there are many, many things that can go wrong in pregnancy/childbirth. We could be here all day.

No, women have abortions because they do not wish to be pregnant anymore. Simple as that.

If the mother is far enough along in pregnancy for the fetus to survive outside her body, you cannot make her give birth to it. You cannot make any woman give birth to a child she does not wish to have. That is why we have abortion.

I can justify aborting a fetus that can survive outside the womb easily. The woman does not want to be pregnant, she does not wish to give birth. I don't know why this is hard for you to grasp.

Late term abortions are rarer - your point?

Adoption is not the rosy alternative so many pro lifers like to think it is. Gee, it's so easy, if you don't want the baby, give it up for adoption. Sure, that solves everything. You really think every child given up for adoption finds their way into a happy adoptive home? Think again.

The use of the term 'murder' amuses me. Probably because it's incorrect.
A fetus is not innocent. A fetus is not guilty. It is not born, it is neithor innocent nor guilty. Just because it 'didn't ask to be there' doesn't make it innocent.
If a baby was conceived of rape, my concern would be for the mother, first and foremost. Is she emotional stable enough to endure a pregnancy? Her mental health comes first. The fetus isn't worth anything because the rights of the mother in this case trump all so called rights of the fetus.

As I said, pro lifers care a lot about a fetus when it is unborn, but as soon as it's made it's way into the world, you wash your hands of it. Kinda saying 'Well, that's my job done'. Do pro lifers offer any finacial assistance to the mothers of these babies? The mothers who have given birth to their children when they really should have aborted? Do I see a line of pro lifers lining up outside orphanages to adopt those children they were so protective of while still in the womb? Nope. Why? Because those children are BORN, and lifers only care about it when it's unborn.

Whether it has 'done nothing' is irrelevent. Fact is, it's inside the mothers body, and she didn't give it permission to be there.

My apologies, I misread an earlier statement and took that to mean you are in favour of the DP.

The people on death row are not using someones bodily nutrients to sustain their own lives.

Babies are not innocent. Innocence is a term pro lifers like to use for some reason, can't figure out why.
Just because someone kills someone else, does not give us the right to kill them.

A fetus begins to feel pain at around 24. Before that, as I have explained, the brain is not developed enough in order for it to have the capacity to feel pain.

They are a potential body, attached to another persons body. They are draining that person of their bodily nutrients. Because of this, I could refer to the fetus as being a type of parasite, but that never sits well with pro lifers who hate to compare a fetus with a tick, or a leech.

You make no sense.

Unborn baby=Human, but not person, nor human being
Human being=Person
Person=Human being/human
Born baby=Person/human being/human.

Makes sense? An unborn baby is not a human person. A born baby is.

__________________
The woman in my avatar is Cristina Scabbia and the woman in my profile picture is Tarja Turunen
Sun flames and moons glow, timeless the tides will flow, what will I face, what will be mine, fortune and fate the other side...

Post of the week:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Inferno You just don't relate to my sense of humor. How about this. Gosh darn funny man living in a whale. doncha know that gawd could do that I betcha he could. wink wink.

so you admit that...by your own definition a fetus is alive. OK. but you believe that the mother has the right to kill it...OK(i guess...) My issue is how you can justify the murder of an infant but find the killing of vile wretchs with human forms inexcusable. at least theres a reason for killing murderers.

Going by that, there is still no reasonable reason for abortion. A Healthy mother with a Healthy child has virtually nothing to be worried about for childbirth.

That's not justification. Just because I don't want someone to be around doesn't mean I have the right to go kill that person.

Why does the media stick their nose in whenever some gruesome manslaughter occurs? People care because innocent lives are being taken for no justifiable reason. The law premits it, people have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean we should just let it be. Immagine trying to explain to an African American before civil rights that white people were just exercising their rights to slaves and therefore you should stick your nose somewhere else.

If you get to discount all the risks of abortion, then I get to discount all the risks of childbirth with a healthy mother and baby.

Pragmatically the only thing that matters is the difference in risk which is next to nothing. Your argument that abortion is safer than childbirth is irrelevant because that is rarley the reason anyone has an abortion.

Your Honor, I killed that man because I didn't want him to be my neighbor anymore. Simple as that... I get off now, right?

But the baby can live on its own. Its no longer a "parasite" (even though I already demonstrated that all babies aren't) It might be inconvienent for the mother to have a C-Section or give birth, but you can't kill the baby instead of removing it because it saves the woman a scar.

The baby is indiscernable from a newly born baby. End of Story. If you can justify killing it because it would be inconvenient to move, then you can justify killing a newly born, it might be inconvenient to bring home.

Just because its rare doesn't mean we can just let it be. Just because murder is rare doesn't mean we make it legal.

I don't recall saying its a rosy alternative. But I don't recall orphans being a group of people who commit mass suicide becasue they don't like their lives. Either way, its the baby's life and the baby's choice.



Well I'm glad you deem it incorrect. Surprisingly, I've never met a Pro-Choice person who admits its murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde A fetus is not innocent.

Naw, you caught on, I was joshing you. Unborn babies are constantly convicted for grand theft auto and have been known to be serial killers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde A fetus is not guilty. It is not born, it is neithor innocent nor guilty.

innocence is the state of not being guilty, therefore unborn babies are innocent. We've been through the fact that the born and unborn are indsitinguishable, you inadvertenly admitted that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Just because it 'didn't ask to be there' doesn't make it innocent.

Just because the mother 'didn't ask for a baby' doesn't mean the baby doesn't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde If a baby was conceived of rape, my concern would be for the mother, first and foremost. Is she emotional stable enough to endure a pregnancy? Her mental health comes first. The fetus isn't worth anything because the rights of the mother in this case trump all so called rights of the fetus.

This case is so inconceivably rare, but let's not let that stop us. In the act of rape, the baby did nothing wrong, it merely was created. Obviously, taking care of the mother's health is important, but how is slaughtering a baby that has done nothing going to make things better?



That's absurd and stereotypical, not to mention completely unsupported by anything except the immaginary story you told about my evil twin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makedde Kinda saying 'Well, that's my job done'. Do pro lifers offer any finacial assistance to the mothers of these babies? The mothers who have given birth to their children when they really should have aborted? Do I see a line of pro lifers lining up outside orphanages to adopt those children they were so protective of while still in the womb? Nope. Why? Because those children are BORN, and lifers only care about it when it's unborn.

Again, absurd. I don't adopt a baby, therefore I don't care? The fact that every single person who is pro-life doesn't adopt a baby doesn't mean they don't care about orphans. At the church I go to, I happen to know of a fund that is given to families which can't support their children, often times, we have these things called fund-raisers, where people donate money to the fund. The fund is then used to support the people you say I don't care about. Of course, that's one example. However, what proof have you offered that shows all people who believe we shouldn't murder innocent children only care about the baby being born.

Under that logic, she can take the baby out, but she can't kill the baby for no reason.

No problem, as the devil's advocate I am, I did argue that it was better than abortion, but I did say that I'm not for it.

The people using someones bodily nutrients to sutstain their own lives didn't do anything wrong, therefore they should be punished? If you ask anyone whether they would rather have been aborted or not, the answer is an astounding no. Why does the mother get to decide what she feels is the greater good when no child would rather be dead than alive? Removing a baby is one thing, but killing it?