324 replies to this topic

[Lady_Maha]

Murder is not as simple as killing. It is killing someone with malicous(sp?) intent. Executing people is not murdering. Aborting is!

Then dropping a bomb on an Iraqui town is murder as well, or do all Iraqui children have malicious intents as well?

Fact is, by law it is not considered to be alive until it is in the second trimester. It is a lump of cells with not much that functions. If you want to go into detail, isn't birth control murder then too? After all you are preventing new life from coming into existence.

I don't see much sense in discussing this issue any further with you, since you do not give me valid arguments but instead keep repeating yourself. You refer to YOUR religion which dictates that abortion is murder and ignore the medically and lawfully set definition on what is life and what isn't. All I can say is, I am glad that you are not the one in charge, and I pray for all the females in your family that they will never end up in a situation where they have to make this kind of decision.

[Wafer]

I live in London, and I imagine the issues and conflicts are much the same over here.

What is angering alot on British people is the possibility that at best we were delibeately mislead at worst lied to by our respective governments.

No one in their right mind is really arguing that Hussein was not a 'bad' person. To use that as an argument is redundant.

What is worrying in that this was the Allies 1st ever pre-emptive strike, and the reasons behind it, have had alot of doubt cast over them since. Perhaps even our elected governments knew beforehand that their information about the WMD programme in Iraq was shaky at best, but 'sexed' it up in presenting it to us.

And if you think that that is ok because 'the end justifies the means' then I afraid that that attitude is equally as scary as Saddam's regime!



PS It says alot about a nation that would vote Marge & Homer Simpson as parental role models! I'm guessing you got the president you deserve.

Edited by Wafer, 21 July 2004 - 03:07 PM.

[Mec]

Murder is not as simple as killing.  It is killing someone with malicous(sp?) intent.  Executing people is not murdering.  Aborting is!

Then dropping a bomb on an Iraqui town is murder as well, or do all Iraqui children have malicious intents as well?

Fact is, by law it is not considered to be alive until it is in the second trimester. It is a lump of cells with not much that functions. If you want to go into detail, isn't birth control murder then too? After all you are preventing new life from coming into existence.

I don't see much sense in discussing this issue any further with you, since you do not give me valid arguments but instead keep repeating yourself. You refer to YOUR religion which dictates that abortion is murder and ignore the medically and lawfully set definition on what is life and what isn't. All I can say is, I am glad that you are not the one in charge, and I pray for all the females in your family that they will never end up in a situation where they have to make this kind of decision.

According to the seven characteristics of life (or 5), unborn babies are living.


Abortion is murder, hope that's a valid enough argument for you.
Many abortions used to (maybe still do) occur when the child could be removed and live a life!

Infant's don't understand life, but you can't kill them.

[Lady_Maha]

Abortions are only legal in the first trimester. I can guarantee you that nothing born during the first trimester will live.

Now define the 7 characteristics of life if you please.

Edit: And no, chanting "Abortion is murder" is not a valid enough argument for me.

Edited by Lady_Maha, 21 July 2004 - 05:23 PM.

[two]

I live in London, and I imagine the issues and conflicts are much the same over here.

What is angering alot on British people is the possibility that at best we were delibeately mislead at worst lied to by our respective governments.

No one in their right mind is really arguing that Hussein was not a 'bad' person. To use that as an argument is redundant.

What is worrying in that this was the Allies 1st ever pre-emptive strike, and the reasons behind it, have had alot of doubt cast over them since. Perhaps even our elected governments knew beforehand that their information about the WMD programme in Iraq was shaky at best, but 'sexed' it up in presenting it to us.

And if you think that that is ok because 'the end justifies the means' then I afraid that that attitude is equally as scary as Saddam's regime!



PS It says alot about a nation that would vote Marge & Homer Simpson as parental role models! I'm guessing you got the president you deserve.

hey, at least your media is credible, and your governement is honest about their moose up. the reallly enjoy the guardian and stern, and i tihnk bbc's news is one of the most informative (a little moreso than cnn...due to cnn's conservative nature). at least tony the tiger (or blair to his informals) is admiting blame, while bush is sliding the blame over to his information agencies (who then report he, rice, and members of bush's admin stressed iraqial focus), or pawns it off as a "who cares why we went in there in the first place, the point is, iraq is now a more free and liberated state. how 'bout them queers? i hate them, you hate them, they mess with texas."

i was watching his televised address at a rally where he so slickly touched on the iraq subject and slid over to natioanlism and american values. i was really pretty amazing on how well he swooned the public.

a lot of kids say that kerry is too weak, that he's a dork and too nancy pants for the nation. what people fail to realize is that he is very hard on many issues, and often they seem not to coincide with eachother all the time. for example, he's pro-choice, anti partial-birth. he thinks we should taxcut middle america, and then raise them again. a bold move, but this could get healthcare the funding it needs, as well as stimulate the economy. he's also an avid gun supporter.

he a wishwash of views, outside the lines of the typical democrat/republican mold we all have in mind. whether this is good or not is questionable, but looking how things are now, and how things look in the future, he not only seems like the lesser of two evils, but a change in office. i'm not trying to glorify him, nuts, i might not even vote for him. all i'm saying is there's a lot of just plain ignorance out there...people waving their fingers, shouting "kerry does this!" or "bush believes this!" when they're uterly false. take time to actually check out what these people are saying, rather than rely on the banter that's being flung here, or quoting what your parents/friends/town believes because you're too lazy or too comfortable with conformity to do anything about it.

[two]

Murder is not as simple as killing.  It is killing someone with malicous(sp?) intent.  Executing people is not murdering.  Aborting is!

Then dropping a bomb on an Iraqui town is murder as well, or do all Iraqui children have malicious intents as well?

Fact is, by law it is not considered to be alive until it is in the second trimester. It is a lump of cells with not much that functions. If you want to go into detail, isn't birth control murder then too? After all you are preventing new life from coming into existence.

I don't see much sense in discussing this issue any further with you, since you do not give me valid arguments but instead keep repeating yourself. You refer to YOUR religion which dictates that abortion is murder and ignore the medically and lawfully set definition on what is life and what isn't. All I can say is, I am glad that you are not the one in charge, and I pray for all the females in your family that they will never end up in a situation where they have to make this kind of decision.

According to the seven characteristics of life (or 5), unborn babies are living.


Abortion is murder, hope that's a valid enough argument for you.
Many abortions used to (maybe still do) occur when the child could be removed and live a life!

Infant's don't understand life, but you can't kill them.

what the hell is this? this has no medical background at all. i checked all over the web and some of my brother's texts he left home. there's some of the most intelectually retarding material on the web about 7 or 5 signs of life

http://www.konnectio.../sevensigns.htm
http://www.op.org/fa...ion/comp412.htm

there's a whole lot of weird cult mumbo jumbo too. apparently some people base their lives on the number seven (one lady says we all live 7 lives....she doesn't quite explain how she came to this, maybe there were seven chocolate chips in here chips ahoy cookie).

what i did find on the internet was an idiot.

[Mec]

I learned them as 5... but here the "7" are.

The five that I learned are:

Living things...

React

Develop

Move

Reproduce

Eat (or produce energy)


Then, another 2 that they say are:

They excrete or get rid of waste.

Are highly organised (in cell makeup or whatever)



There are other versions of these, though, different scientists have different views. I believe unborn babies would fit all of them, however.

[Mec]

I live in London, and I imagine the issues and conflicts are much the same over here.

What is angering alot on British people is the possibility that at best we were delibeately mislead at worst lied to by our respective governments.

No one in their right mind is really arguing that Hussein was not a 'bad' person. To use that as an argument is redundant.

What is worrying in that this was the Allies 1st ever pre-emptive strike, and the reasons behind it, have had alot of doubt cast over them since. Perhaps even our elected governments knew beforehand that their information about the WMD programme in Iraq was shaky at best, but 'sexed' it up in presenting it to us.

And if you think that that is ok because 'the end justifies the means' then I afraid that that attitude is equally as scary as Saddam's regime!



PS It says alot about a nation that would vote Marge & Homer Simpson as parental role models! I'm guessing you got the president you deserve.

 

hey, at least your media is credible, and your governement is honest about their moose up. the reallly enjoy the guardian and stern, and i tihnk bbc's news is one of the most informative (a little moreso than cnn...due to cnn's conservative nature). at least tony the tiger (or blair to his informals) is admiting blame, while bush is sliding the blame over to his information agencies (who then report he, rice, and members of bush's admin stressed iraqial focus), or pawns it off as a "who cares why we went in there in the first place, the point is, iraq is now a more free and liberated state. how 'bout them queers? i hate them, you hate them, they mess with texas."

i was watching his televised address at a rally where he so slickly touched on the iraq subject and slid over to natioanlism and american values. i was really pretty amazing on how well he swooned the public.

a lot of kids say that kerry is too weak, that he's a dork and too nancy pants for the nation. what people fail to realize is that he is very hard on many issues, and often they seem not to coincide with eachother all the time. for example, he's pro-choice, anti partial-birth. he thinks we should taxcut middle america, and then raise them again. a bold move, but this could get healthcare the funding it needs, as well as stimulate the economy. he's also an avid gun supporter.

he a wishwash of views, outside the lines of the typical democrat/republican mold we all have in mind. whether this is good or not is questionable, but looking how things are now, and how things look in the future, he not only seems like the lesser of two evils, but a change in office. i'm not trying to glorify him, nuts, i might not even vote for him. all i'm saying is there's a lot of just plain ignorance out there...people waving their fingers, shouting "kerry does this!" or "bush believes this!" when they're uterly false. take time to actually check out what these people are saying, rather than rely on the banter that's being flung here, or quoting what your parents/friends/town believes because you're too lazy or too comfortable with conformity to do anything about it.

Kerry is a nincompoop.

He doesn't know what he stands for, he say different things to different people.



Kerry says: I don't fall.

Kerry rides his bike.

Kerry falls.

Kerry says: THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BIKE!

Mecrenary says: THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE QUANTITY OF YOUR ARROGANCE!

[two]

I live in London, and I imagine the issues and conflicts are much the same over here.

What is angering alot on British people is the possibility that at best we were delibeately mislead at worst lied to by our respective governments.

No one in their right mind is really arguing that Hussein was not a 'bad' person. To use that as an argument is redundant.

What is worrying in that this was the Allies 1st ever pre-emptive strike, and the reasons behind it, have had alot of doubt cast over them since. Perhaps even our elected governments knew beforehand that their information about the WMD programme in Iraq was shaky at best, but 'sexed' it up in presenting it to us.

And if you think that that is ok because 'the end justifies the means' then I afraid that that attitude is equally as scary as Saddam's regime!



PS It says alot about a nation that would vote Marge & Homer Simpson as parental role models! I'm guessing you got the president you deserve.

 

hey, at least your media is credible, and your governement is honest about their moose up. the reallly enjoy the guardian and stern, and i tihnk bbc's news is one of the most informative (a little moreso than cnn...due to cnn's conservative nature). at least tony the tiger (or blair to his informals) is admiting blame, while bush is sliding the blame over to his information agencies (who then report he, rice, and members of bush's admin stressed iraqial focus), or pawns it off as a "who cares why we went in there in the first place, the point is, iraq is now a more free and liberated state. how 'bout them queers? i hate them, you hate them, they mess with texas."

i was watching his televised address at a rally where he so slickly touched on the iraq subject and slid over to natioanlism and american values. i was really pretty amazing on how well he swooned the public.

a lot of kids say that kerry is too weak, that he's a dork and too nancy pants for the nation. what people fail to realize is that he is very hard on many issues, and often they seem not to coincide with eachother all the time. for example, he's pro-choice, anti partial-birth. he thinks we should taxcut middle america, and then raise them again. a bold move, but this could get healthcare the funding it needs, as well as stimulate the economy. he's also an avid gun supporter.

he a wishwash of views, outside the lines of the typical democrat/republican mold we all have in mind. whether this is good or not is questionable, but looking how things are now, and how things look in the future, he not only seems like the lesser of two evils, but a change in office. i'm not trying to glorify him, nuts, i might not even vote for him. all i'm saying is there's a lot of just plain ignorance out there...people waving their fingers, shouting "kerry does this!" or "bush believes this!" when they're uterly false. take time to actually check out what these people are saying, rather than rely on the banter that's being flung here, or quoting what your parents/friends/town believes because you're too lazy or too comfortable with conformity to do anything about it.

Kerry is a nincompoop.

He doesn't know what he stands for, he say different things to different people.



Kerry says: I don't fall.

Kerry rides his bike.

Kerry falls.

Kerry says: THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BIKE!

Mecrenary says: THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE QUANTITY OF YOUR ARROGANCE!

i hate you

[Charon]

Living things vary from the simplest single-celled plants and animals up to giant trees and whales. But no matter how simple or complicated, all living things show 7 characteristics of life. All plants and animals are alive, and are able to sustain themselves by making use of these seven characteristics.

And those seven, according to my biology lessons, are as follows. Some are the same as yours... some perhaps aren't

MOVEMENT
the ability to move , n.b. Locomotion - movement (of the whole organism) from place to place
The organism is able to change it's position

RESPIRATION
getting energy from food - this occurs inside the cells
n.b. Energy is not "made" - it is merely released from the organic molecules, by oxidation - usually needing oxygen .
(Not the same as breathing, which is only done by some active animals)

SENSITIVITY (IRRITABILITY)
the ability to respond to stimuli from the surroundings and changes in the environment using "senses"

GROWTH
increase in (size or) number of cells (presumably in order to be more efficient)

REPRODUCTION
production of new individuals (offspring) n.b. Sexual reproduction is not confined to animals

EXCRETION
removal of waste produced inside cells - not to be confused with removal of undigested food

NUTRITION (FEEDING)
obtaining and using food - either to be built up (assimilated) for growth and repair, or used as a 'fuel'


Mec? Now I'd like to see you apply those to your case, just for my sake bitte ^^

Edited by Charon, 21 July 2004 - 06:23 PM.

[Mec]

Living things vary from the simplest single-celled plants and animals up to giant trees and whales. But no matter how simple or complicated, all living things show 7 characteristics of life. All plants and animals are alive, and are able to sustain themselves by making use of these seven characteristics.

And those seven, according to my biology lessons, are as follows. Some are the same as yours... some perhaps aren't

MOVEMENT
the ability to move , n.b. Locomotion - movement (of the whole organism) from place to place
The organism is able to change it's position

RESPIRATION
getting energy from food - this occurs inside the cells
n.b. Energy is not "made" - it is merely released from the organic molecules, by oxidation - usually needing oxygen .
(Not the same as breathing, which is only done by some active animals)

SENSITIVITY (IRRITABILITY)
the ability to respond to stimuli from the surroundings and changes in the environment using "senses"

GROWTH
increase in (size or) number of cells (presumably in order to be more efficient)

REPRODUCTION
production of new individuals (offspring) n.b. Sexual reproduction is not confined to animals

EXCRETION
removal of waste produced inside cells - not to be confused with removal of undigested food

NUTRITION (FEEDING)
obtaining and using food - either to be built up (assimilated) for growth and repair, or used as a 'fuel'


Mec? Now I'd like to see you apply those to your case, just for my sake bitte ^^

Plants aren't easily able to change their position, so movement is kind of weird. I seem to remember my baby sister "kicking" before she was bornm my mom told me. I think that's later than abortion is illegal though.

Energy from food passes from the mother to help ummm.... feed the child I guess.

When my little sister was unborn, I used to make a high pitched ermm... noise. She reacted to that then, and when she was old enough, smiled, when I did that later.

The grow, duh.

I'm still not sure about excretion, I haven't gotten through that many biology classes yet.

Obtaining? What's the difference between this and that other one? Oooh, in one he 'uses' the food, in this one he 'gets' it. I'm not sure about this one either.


As you can see, I'm no scientist, biut I did the best I could for my... younger age.


Allow me to state this again, people aren't BORN equally, they are CREATED equally.

[Charon]

Now, what's so 'cold' and 'blunt' about my posts, how should I say what I want to say?

What is cold and blunt about your posts is that they only emotion they contain is anger... and if you resort to caps because you believe that will get your message across, no wonder you are failing to convince me with your arguements.
Blunt? You argue the same things over and over again, with very little deviation, and with very little to back you up other than what you happen to say.

I hope that wasn't to 'blunt' or 'simple' for you.

Most of this post I had already posted before, but I combined them to be 'less blunt'

You're meant to be arguing against my points and rationalising your arguements, not picking at my terminology.
You seem to have taken my terminology as an affront to yourself... it wasn't intended to be. I didn't mean what I said in any offensive way... and yet you got defensive and chose to think that I was having a go at you. I wasn't. If I had been, you would know.

Murder is not as simple as killing. It is killing someone with malicous(sp?) intent. Executing people is not murdering. Aborting is!

Qutie simply, I don't understand your rationalisation about how abortion has 'malicious intent'

"all men are CREATED (not born) equally"

Allow me to state this again, people aren't BORN equally, they are CREATED equally

And I notice you took no notice of Dognapot's thoughts on this...

So, Mec... you wish to take constitutional rights out of context and apply them to places they are not intended to influence?
You wish to emphasise the word 'created' and take it at face value.
So let's take that quote at face value: So all men are created equally... I'm not a man, I'm a woman- does that therefore mean that I am not equal?

So pretty much, abortion is an evil, selfish, harmful, and unfair action.
It harms an innocent child, it harms America, which, in turn, harms you, and ME! It's unfair! Stop it! It should be illegalized!

I do not belive in the concepts of good and evil, at least not in the same terms you seem to. Simply saying something is "unfair" or "wrong", does not make it unfair or wrong.

harm noun hurt, pain verb 1 wound, damage 2to cause physical pain 3 To wrong someone

It does not harm an innocent child, because that child has no knowledge of life. Noone 'remembers' what occured to them in the womb, they are unable to feel/remember anything that occured to them in that period of time.
Therefore, by ending a life before that life develops the ability to 'feel' they are not being 'harmed' as such... not truly.

Does abortion only happen in america then? Gee, I guess I must have missed something all these years then.
On the up side, if it only harms America, I'm in England and it will have no effect on me whatsoever. Useful that logic of yours, hm?

Edited by Charon, 21 July 2004 - 06:47 PM.

[Mec]

I'm not angry, I'm just not good at phrasing what I want to say.

Ah, I didn't notice what dognapot said... reading now...

...that among these are LIFE!!! That's in that line too! Thanks dognapot!

They deserve to LIVE, it's an UNALIANABLE(sp?) RIGHT!!!


I have made no reference to my religion.

Good and evil?

How about morality?

I don't get it, people should be punished for killing people, but there's no good or evil.

It has to do with morality and stuff like that. Th

Edited by Mec, 21 July 2004 - 07:08 PM.

[Mec]

mec, i believe that the "created equal" thing is actually refering to the human design giving every individual equal potential that should not be hindered by government. just my interpretation there. also, you know the rest of that sentence?

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

who endowed these rights? if i were to follow your logic, the capital C creator would be two people having sex. however, i think the creator here, doing the creating is actually the creator of the human design and not just sperm and eggs.

Please follow my logic for me out loud.

[Charon]

As you can see, I'm no scientist, biut I did the best I could for my... younger age

You're no scientist? What luck, I'm studying to be one.
However yes, I am older than you, so I apologise if my science babble is too... babbly ^^;;

My sister is the same age as you, and she's started to cover this in school... I guess thats another of the differences between UK and USA hm? ^^

I seem to remember my baby sister "kicking" before she was bornm my mom told me.  I think that's later than abortion is illegal though

Indeed, by the time babies can 'kick' it is illegal to abort

Plants aren't easily able to change their position, so movement is kind of weird

Aren't easily able to, but can:

Movement in plants
Some parts of plants, e.g. flowers, leaves - may open or close depending on the time of day, or the leaves of plants move themselves to face the light of the sun so that they can continue to survive.
Dispersal of seeds is movement, and results in new plants being spread to new areas away from their parents.
Some plants can move (parts) quite fast, e.g. the Venus fly trap, and the sensitive plant Mimosa.

The grow, duh

Indeed they do... and theres something you do have in common with my sister, that infuriating 'word'... now that isn't in the dictionary.

I'm still not sure about excretion, I haven't gotten through that many biology classes yet

Then prepare to get ahead of your class

Excretion, I defined as the "removal of waste produced inside cells"
Animals
Waste is neutralised and removed by the main excretory organs:
lungs, kidneys, the skin (via sweat glands)
Debatably, with the "not to be confused with removal of undigested food" the rather... eh... obvious ways the human (or animal) body has of removing waste from itself.

Plants
Plants may store their waste in old leaves.
Some wste products are returned to the world around them, via the roots... or through the leaves, after all, Oxygen is a waste product of plants ^^

Obtaining?  What's the difference between this and that other one?  Oooh, in one he 'uses' the food, in this one he 'gets' it.  I'm not sure about this one either.

By nutrition, or "obtaining" of food...

Animals either eat plants directly, or eat other animals .... which themselves
eat plants. This is because animals cannot "make" (chemically synthesise) their
own food. Complex substances of plant origin are broken down into simpler ones, and their energy is released as a separate process.

Plants are able to synthesise their own food by the process of photosynthesis. Simple (inorganic) substances are built up into complex (organic) ones - the same as those also used as foods by animals.
Plants can also obtain mineral salts from the ground, which are also nutrients for
plants, but not foods that provide energy

By Respiration (to quote me again "getting energy from food - this occurs inside the cells")

(Aerobic) Respiration equation (because I cant remember the anaerobic one ^^;; )

(Aerobic) Respiration is the same process in animals and plants
"food" + oxygen --> "waste" substances + energy
(e.g. glucose).... --> (e.g. water & carbon dioxide)

(where energy isnt a substance ^^)

Active animals need more energy, so animals such as Man have a "respiratory system" with a specialised gas exchange surface, and also a circulatory system to transport oxygen around the body, so that respiration can occur in cells and produce the energy the cells need to live, to move, etc.
Breathing is a pumping action in order to get more oxygen, but not all animals
perform it... that is why breathing is not the same as respiration

Plants are less active, so they need less energy, and so they can devote more resources to growth, etc.
Again, respiration, or the reactions within cells which make energy, occur within the cells.




However just because the foetus can perform some of these actions does not mean its alive.

all living things show 7 characteristics of life

Just showing one or two characteristics... isn't enough I'm afraid... all seven are necessary for something to count as "alive" in a scientific sense ^^;;

Edited by Charon, 21 July 2004 - 07:10 PM.

[Mec]

Yeah, but it WILL show all of these characteristics. Don't things have to be living in order to become living? I guess not.

Anyway:

now that isn't in the dictionary.

That: Used to refer to the one designated, implied, mentioned, or understood: What kind of soup is that?

Edit:

Anyway, on good and evil.

What about morality? Do you believe in that?


Oh, and about harming? Killing someone is 'doing them wrong'.

Edited by Mec, 21 July 2004 - 08:03 PM.

[Lich]

OK i lied again. Mec Acording to your Profile you were born in 1991. Now that is not a bad thing in most but it does point two things screaming out at me. You are Not old enough to even understand half of what you are talking about obviously.

First You have never picked up a weapon and killed someone for your country. I have its not the glory Shyte that they feed you. It is not playing with a pop gun in your yard the person is not gonna get up, and no matter if your country said to do it or not its still murder. Now that being said we will go on to the topic you enjoy screaming about. Oh and so you know i was killing people for my country in the first Iraq war while you were in diapers.

Abbortion is not murder when it is performed with in the legal limits, all the instances of actions that your Sister did and you brought to this forum do not come untill after the legal cut off. In the first trimester the baby doesn't have a heart beat. (Clinically dead), There is no movement (Physically dead), and lastly there is no brain activity at all. (brain dead). If an adult was looked at and found to have these three points they would be subject to disconection of life support, and never attached to it in the first place if they showed any of them before being attached.

I am also a maryland state Emergency medical tech, When you call us to your house because your mother stopped breathing we will not even start CPR if one of three things accure. The releasing of the bowes(meaning they have crapped on your floor), Their heart shows a flat line on the cardio(It is not the movies that flat line doesnt mean shock. It means I hope you have kissed your ass goodbye, no amount of shocking will bring you back.

A baby in the first trimester meets all that i have stated above. It isnt alive yet, It shows no sign of life and if it is removed from the womb it will not live on its own. There fore Abortion is not murder as you can not kill what is already dead. It will not be alive no matter how much you wish it untill it has shown one of those three states.

Next you are 14years old and you have a whole life ahead of you, But you have never felt what a rape is like and i do not think for even a split second you even know someone who does. Untill then STFU you are doing nothing but looking like an idiot.

[Mec]

If you think I'm 14 my profile is lying.

How come if I'm too young to understand it then why is what I say mostly correct. When I'm not sure, I say so. Also, I seem to have considerably better grammar skills than many people who are posting here.

Besides: Age doesn't decide anything really. That's just how long a time someone
has had to grasp concepts of reality. Some people can do it more quickly than others.

Murder is not hard to understand anyway, I back away from rape subject except I know that murder won't solve any problem, really.

I still stick with this:
1. All men were created equally.

2. Therefore they have an unalienable right to life.

Care to argue with those?

Use logic and then find out if babies have an unalienable right to life.

edit: Oh, and try to define abortion without using 'killing'. Everyone will agree here that abortion is killing babies.

Edited by Mec, 21 July 2004 - 08:59 PM.

[Charon]

Firsty you quoted me incorrectly, my 'that' was italicised. Yes I left myself wide open for that one, perhaps I even asked for it by being pendantic... but I do know that you were fully aware of what I meant ^^

Secondly... as it happens, though I don't believe in good and evil I do indeed believe in morality. I am not sure whether to feel insulted that you may feel I do not, simply because I do not agree with you

Thirdly parts of this discussion I do feel I have the authority to discuss, other parts I don't... but Lich seems to have both the knowledge and experience to speak on these subjects with far more authority than either of us. Plus he writes far more persuasively than I do ^^
Maybe both of us could learn to heed him, hm?



Mec, we have already established that everyone here doesn't agree with you. Some may, but everyone doesn't, so theres no point in protesting that everyone does.
I for one don't. That's enough to make your statement that everyone agrees with your own statement incorrect.
I am currently on the verge of thinking you're being a complete pratt, but in all honesty what I think is probably as irrelavant as what you think ^^

Editted to sound less hostile... sorry :S

Edited by Charon, 21 July 2004 - 09:11 PM.

[Mec]

Wasn't meant to offend you.

It's murder, oh whoops, it doesn't show signs of life, so it's not murder?
It's a human being, for goodness sake.

What are the laws on murder, i'm too lazy to find them.

People can kill babies because they're too young, and then they can laugh (not exactly laugh, I don't know how to put it) at me when I try to say that it's wrong because "I'm too young!"

Age means NOTHING!

Argghh, I'm starting to feel the first small waves of anger. You can flame me all you like, but make an issue of my age? AUGGH!




It's settled, a newborn baby is, in fact, a living thing.

A newborn baby can't reproduce.
But he will eventually, when he develops.

Why doesn't it work the same for other signs of life and younger babies?

[Charon]

It's murder, oh whoops, it doesn't show signs of life, so it's not murder?

Well, quite frankly, yes.
It's not alive yet. It doesn't show signs of life, either scientific or medical... it is therefore not living.
You cannot kill what is not alive.

Mec... You were the one who bought up your age, not us. You were using your age as an excuse for not understanding the seven characteristics of life that you bought up.

You brought your age up in your defense... you cannot expect that very point not to be jumped on and used against you.

I'm sorry... but honestly, in your posts you just don't seem to act like the most mature of people :S

abort verb 1) of a plan (etc) 2) to come to nothing, to remain or to stay undeveloped 3)to remove a foetus to end a pregnancy.
abortion noun, the removal of a foetus to end a pregnancy, the removal of a foetus to terminate a pregnancy, the removal of a foetus to prevent life from forming.
abortive adj, coming to nothing, useless

That... didn't use the word killed, did it? ^^
oh... "terminate- to prevent, to bring or come to an end"

Edited by Charon, 21 July 2004 - 09:32 PM.

[Mec]

It wasn't in defense. Why would I need defending?

I said something like "I'm probably wrong, I haven't taken the classes"


edit:
Murder: noun, the removal of a person to end a life, the removal of a person to terminate an existence, the removal of a person to prevent more time of existence.

Hmm

Anyway

The REMOVAL of life implies that live is already there.

But still it can prevent it from forming.

Murder is preventing it from continuing, there is a difference, I suppose.


I repeat (in case anyone wasn't listening)
Two points:

What did the baby ever do? It's innocent. You did it too, nobody aborted you! The child DESERVES to live!

The baby has the same unalienable right to live you as you do.

Edited by Mec, 21 July 2004 - 09:39 PM.

[dognapot]

mec, murder is killing someone who's alive. abortion is a gray area because fetus's cannot live without the womb, and are essentially a part of a woman's body.

as for the whole abortion thing. i know when i buy a dozen grade A eggs i'm not gonig to make chicken with them, and i didn't get charged for the potential chicken that was 'murdered' when the egg wasn't left under the chicken or in an incubator. the problem i see with the abortion debate is that we've been taught that in order to address procreation we must lump together religious, philosophical, and scientific arguements. that doesn't work. philosophically, abortion's ethical problems are reconsilable, and scientifically the arguement can reach a conclusion also. there is no arguement in religion. lumping these three points of view into the same arguement is just the perfect recipe for an incoherent shouting match where nothing is achieved.

on a related note. does anyone wonder what happens after you say once and for all that a fetus is a human being? it becomes a human being. legally. that's a nightmare i hope i never see. imagine women being forced to have thier tubes tied for the reason of possibly endangering humans. would that be unlawfull endangerment? would women who want to kill thier unborn babies ride on the same bus to mexico with the women who aren't allowed to have kids?

[two]

that's a problem faced in california. a man was charged with murdering his pregnant wife. the interesting part came during the charging, as to charge him with the single homocide, or to charge him for the deaths of both the mother and the child. i couldn't follow this closely, i think they charged him for both murders, but i'm not sure though.

anyways, this puts a spin on the abortion issue as a state matter. i don't know how old the fetus was or any of the details, though.

[Stotic]

...that among these are LIFE!!! That's in that line too! Thanks dognapot!

They deserve to LIVE, it's an UNALIANABLE(sp?) RIGHT!!!

It has to do with morality and stuff like that. Th

It is not a right for them because they are not American citizens! They are not anything. They are not even born.

[dognapot]

...that among these are LIFE!!! That's in that line too!  Thanks dognapot!

They deserve to LIVE, it's an UNALIANABLE(sp?) RIGHT!!!

It has to do with morality and stuff like that.  Th

It is not a right for them because they are not American citizens! They are not anything. They are not even born.

thanks stotic, i didn't notice that reply. this threads like a trainwreck. while i'm at it, i'd just like further stress the implications of classifying fetus's as human beings. to do so would classify women as domiciles. what else could you call 'em? thier just little human homes for nine months. some women would have to be condemned of couse, but oh well, that's why we'd have mandatory check-ups to ensure that women who aren't optimal baby houses are prevented from having babies. somehow, i don't think women would stand for this. i mean, they get pissed when i stare at thier goodies. i can't imagine what kind of rage would happen when they're collectively looked upon as being baby machines above all else. the pro-life movement can be pretty scary, with the bombs and all, but they're bound to stir up that hornet's nest called "pissed off women" sooner or later.

[Wafer]

UK have just passed laws allowing parents to apply to have genetically engineered children to provided things like bone marrow for existing children that are sick!

Kinda relevant to the abortion debate.

Can you imagine the conversation that kid will have with their folks?

"So let me get this straight, you had no intention of having me, only that my older sibling got sick and you needed me to mess with my DNA so they could get better. Jeez thanks guys, love right back at ya!"

Whose gonna pay for those shrink bills?

[Mec]

...that among these are LIFE!!! That's in that line too!  Thanks dognapot!


They deserve to LIVE, it's an UNALIANABLE(sp?) RIGHT!!!

It has to do with morality and stuff like that.  Th

It is not a right for them because they are not American citizens! They are not anything. They are not even born.

No, because all men are CREATED equal, and a fetus exists, therefore it must have been created.



Ok...

Here, you guys are saying that a Fetus is NOT living.

but then you say a Fetus is basically part of the mother.

I believe my arm is living right now.



There is NO shame to having a child! If there is, you've been doing something unacceptable and you must face the conseqeunces(sp?). I'd say there's more shame to have an abortion than a birth.

Soldiers fight for and help their country, they should be respeted. Fathers and mothers also should be looked up at with respect. They helped bring people to America to benefit it.

Let me explain social security.

The old people who can no longer work get money, called social security.

This money comes out of working people's paychecks. A little bit of your paycheck goes to these old people.

When you are old, the younger people's paychecks will help pay YOUR social security.


Now, if there are fewer people to work when I'm an old man, thanks to abortion, either I, the old man, suffers OR more money could be taken out of each paycheck. Either way, either I (an old man), or the younger people will live more poorly.


Abortion both destoys potential life, and makes existing life more miserable.

So pretty much, I don't wanna pay for your stupid, selfish abortion!

[Cule]

...that among these are LIFE!!! That's in that line too!  Thanks dognapot!


They deserve to LIVE, it's an UNALIANABLE(sp?) RIGHT!!!

It has to do with morality and stuff like that.  Th

It is not a right for them because they are not American citizens! They are not anything. They are not even born.

No, because all men are CREATED equal, and a fetus exists, therefore it must have been created.



Ok...

Here, you guys are saying that a Fetus is NOT living.

but then you say a Fetus is basically part of the mother.

I believe my arm is living right now.



There is NO shame to having a child! If there is, you've been doing something unacceptable and you must face the conseqeunces(sp?). I'd say there's more shame to have an abortion than a birth.

Soldiers fight for and help their country, they should be respeted. Fathers and mothers also should be looked up at with respect. They helped bring people to America to benefit it.

Let me explain social security.

The old people who can no longer work get money, called social security.

This money comes out of working people's paychecks. A little bit of your paycheck goes to these old people.

When you are old, the younger people's paychecks will help pay YOUR social security.


Now, if there are fewer people to work when I'm an old man, thanks to abortion, either I, the old man, suffers OR more money could be taken out of each paycheck. Either way, either I (an old man), or the younger people will live more poorly.


Abortion both destoys potential life, and makes existing life more miserable.

So pretty much, I don't wanna pay for your stupid, selfish abortion!

one of the reasons for an abortion is that you cant support a child ...

and when you cant give your child some support he/she will most likely end up unemployed ...
the reasons might be drugs or lack of education ... and the child might lack social skills and have some mental problems ... and could end up killing/robbing people ... and overall cost more money to the nation than not having born at all.

ofcourse its stupid to have an abortion if you know you can give the child all that he/she needs to be a good tax payer ...

Edited by Cule, 22 July 2004 - 06:26 PM.

[Stotic]

No, because all men are CREATED equal, and a fetus exists, therefore it must have been created.

Under who's laws? In America you're not a citizen until your born. So those fetus's have no rights. The government doesn't give social security cards and birth certificates to fetuses. They are not part of the population. If they are not part of the population they do not exist (yet).


And let me get this straight. You keep changing your argument each post. Now your main argument is that abortion is bad because of social security? How about a single mother who can't support a child? She'll be draining every penny of our government's liberal system. So monies disappear in one way or another. And I can tell you that our social security system is already doomed for failure in the future and it is not because of population problems. Did you not read my prior posts? Yes we should respect parentsand soldiers, but when did respect come into play into this conversation and what does it have to do with abortion?