.

Anybody can claim the fetus is alive, and he would be right. If it wasn't alive, how would it develop and grow, eh? Pretty safe assumption here. Although you do have a point, your choice of example sucks quite bad, really. Bad examples don't grant credibility to your own claims.

Oh, Freelancer, so when the "miracles" of science work against your personal views they then become based on politics and religion? I can't say I'm surprised.

Since when is forcing people to consider alternatives and showing them their unborn 'science'? (The policy of showing them, not the ability)Those are policies, dude. Policies intended to get the patient to use her emotion rather than her brain. What reason could there be for showing her an ultrasound? Because you're trying to appeal to her emotion.

And why are you trying to do that? Because you have political motivations or religious motivations for doing so.

The pain thing doesn't apply so much to this, although it's quite redundant to point out that the fetus feels pain. What's the point?

I can't, and I never claimed I could.



let me rephrase it then..

Nobody here, is a doctor.

oooh, that is just skirting Godwin's Law!



Yes, quite. All of my posts on recreational abortion have been concerning very early pregnancies, whereby the woman was just having sex for fun and is quite certain she doesn't want a child.

As soon as the fetus becomes 'alive' (using the same criteria as you would on a dead body), that is when the dilemma arises and is when alternatives should be considered.
But before then, there is no dilemma and the woman should be free to abort as she pleases.

('***' seems to be banned, but were it not, I would have used it for your second post.)




The 'ultimate goal' so to speak is to have technology available to us that gives us the ability to live this hedonistic lifestyle without consequences. Free love, baby.
Are we there yet? Nope. We have to factor technological limitations into our responsibilities. But we're a whole lot closer than we were just 50 years ago.

This technology is giving people the choice to live a lifestyle as hedonistic as they want. Banning this technology is just enforcing arbitrary 'consequences' that we could otherwise avoid.




This is precisely why I use the 'dead body' analogy.

How do doctors determine whether a body is 'alive' or 'dead'? I have no idea.
I assume it's something to do with a certain amount of electrical activity, but I don't know what value that is. But whatever that criterion is, it should be exactly the same for a fetus. Anything else is hypocrisy.

No dude, they work against *you*. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/23/fetal.pain.ap/ . And honestly, who gives a damn about fetal pain? If that's the absoulte incentive not to have an abortion, lots of people are gonna be born into a life with **** perspectives.

The issue of fetal pain is even debated in your reference. 28 weeks is silly in my simple and uneducated opinion anyway.

Science can show a woman her unborn child. Science indicates that a fetus feels pain past a certain point in its development. Society can provide alternatives to abortion. Making a woman fully aware of the situation and all of her choices seems to be pro-choice. Of course we all know the "real" pro-choice is abortion anytime anywhere.

If a man kills a pregnant woman, he is charged with two counts of murder.

If a woman smothers her two-month-old baby, she is charged with murder.

And yet, it is perfectly legal for a woman to abort her 6 or 8 month old fetus.





On another note, my cousin was born three months premature and today he is a completely healthy, normal adult pursuing graduate studies.

READ WHAT I WROTE. I explicitly stated the POLICY of FORCING, not THE ABILITY TO DO AN ULTRASOUND. Science can show a woman her unborn child. Duh. I never said it couldn't. FORCING a woman to look at an ultrasound is nothing more than an appeal to emotion in order to push a political or religious agenda on her. I said it before and I'll say it again if I must.

I read what you wrote but shielding a woman from what science can tell her about her unborn child is moreso what you claim the opposite is.

Giving her all the medical facts about her pregnancy is not political or religious.

If we could use the Force, and feel the connection to all living things, including unborn children, I don't think such a thing as abortion would exist. Or if it did, it would be of the Dark Side.

< Pro-Life here.

I don't think that many of us here are in favor of abortions that late in the pregnancy, I think I speak for a lot of us pro- choicers when I say that it should only be done within the first trimester if at all

...okay. That's got to be the weirdest pro-life argument I've ever seen.

I say this in the outmost respect Temp, but I have found this post halarious and ironic. In a bad way.



"Yoda's pro-life.


...


Why arn't YOU?"

Such a scheme would no doubt lead to many orphan young men looking for their fathers and many fathers looking for their long lost sons - and who knows if those chance encounters were always happy...

Yeah, and I guess we wouldn't eat anything that's alive either?

That leaves...water and salt. Cool.

Good job connecting Star Wars with abortions.

It's like Godwin's law, only with more lasers.

Good god i ****in hate it when people say things like this!!! Where's the relevance??

I have an idea: How about we outlaw abortion, and then make only people who voted in favor of outlawing it pay for the foster care system? I bet no one would vote "yes" on that one.

I bet they would refuse and pay for the establishment of the CDU (Condom Distribution Unit) instead :p



Reminds me of someone relating starwars to contraception through "Force Protection"

That was pretty funny


Pro-Life, because the mother does not have the right to take the life of anyone -- the baby's body is not hers, so why does she have the rights to what is done with it?

And just because it doesn't look like a baby doesn't mean it isn't one...

The only exception to my being prolife being when the mother will clearly die or suffer severe permanant injury, and even then, abortion should be reserved as the last resort for solving the problem.

No disrespect in return, but please, elaborate. I have never claimed to know things about stuff that I never actually studied. working out, I do it daily and I've studied it and gathered advice from other people. Personal trainers, bodybuilders, herbalists and naturopaths, massage therapist's, etc.. Marijuana, I've researched it, not just on the internet. And even if i don't know everything, I've never tried to tell someone THIS is the way their life should be run because I believe something they may choose to do is wrong or right. And even still, those things are far less in comparison of complication and intricacy of medical things. If that is what your point was. But as I said, elaborate.

Ninety-nine percent of the arguments from the “pro-choice” crowd are red herrings. This issue is about weather a fetus is a person or not. If it's a person, it's murder. If it's not a person it doesn't matter. That's the only thing we need to be discussing.

My issue with abortion is this. A bunch of people sat around the table and re-classified human life. It's not relevant weather it’s conscious or can think. He/She is alive. When it comes out of the womb or gains consciousness it does not magically become something else. It only becomes reclassified by a bunch of selfish bureaucrats. A person is either alive or dead. It does not at any stage enter some sort of "Quasi-non-human-but-still-alive-BS-stage." That's just plain stupid.

Oh and because you guys will ignore the first part of my post which is very critical my post and the thread I’m going to post it a few more times:

Ninety-nine percent of the arguments from the “pro-choice” crowd are red herrings. This issue is about weather a fetus is a person or not. If it's a person, it's murder. If it's not a person it doesn't matter. That's the only thing we need to be discussing.

Ninety-nine percent of the arguments from the “pro-choice” crowd are red herrings. This issue is about weather a fetus is a person or not. If it's a person, it's murder. If it's not a person it doesn't matter. That's the only thing we need to be discussing.

Think you got it? Don’t give me any “Oh noes! But what if it’s unwanted?” arguments.
Thanks.

You're wrong, and we should argue about the issue I'd most like to focus on, which allows me to disregard many good points my opponent may make. I'm going to repeat that a few times since it will make me right and you wrong.

You're wrong, and we should argue about the issue I'd most like to focus on, which allows me to disregard many good points my opponent may make.

You're wrong, and we should argue about the issue I'd most like to focus on, which allows me to disregard many good points my opponent may make.

You're wrong, and we should argue about the issue I'd most like to focus on, which allows me to disregard many good points my opponent may make.

There we go, and don't give me any "Oh noes! Zygotes are people too!" arguments.

Thanks.

Oh yay, a straw man fallacy. Did you even read the argument!?

I was just kidding dude, chill out. :p

TAKE A CHILL PILL

Oh, ok. *Sits in freezer for 2 hours as punishment*

Obi, come out of there! This is your father! Obi--OH DEAR GOD NOOOOO

Okay.



Totally agreed, dude.



Once again, totally agreed.

But that's the thing. Some people just view it differently. Some people place a high value on potential intelligence, while others do not. Some believe life starts at conception, some don't.

Because of this, there will always be pro-lifers, there will always be pro-choicers, and abortion will always be controversial. Therefore, I propose that arguing about whether abortion is murder is fruitless.

So what you're saying is: 'it's human life!' ?

Yes, I believe he is. And there are plenty of others, including myself, who stand with him on that.



Agreed. Even if one could prove one way or the other, there will always be dissent.

This thread makes me want to listen to some Enya.

[/SIZE]

>.>