<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3873765.stm' target='_blank'>link to bbc article</a>

&

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm' target='_blank'>3d slide show </a>

&

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm' target='_blank'>another bbc article</a>

well if that isnt human i dont know what is

safetyeagle Wrote:<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3873765.stm' target='_blank'>link to bbc article</a>

&

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/3847319.stm' target='_blank'>3d slide show </a>

&

<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm' target='_blank'>another bbc article</a>

well if that isnt human i dont know what is

Quote:"If the scientific evidence has shifted then it is obviously sensible for us to take that into account.

Well scientific evidence never was used to justify abortions. But, it's good to see some folks are reconsidering the position.

Abortion is such a tough topic. I've debated this many times with myself. here's is what I have come up with and I know it's a simplistic way of viewing things, but how can you tell someone else what to do with THEIR BODY. On one hand we are for individual rights and on the other hand we want to tell other people of when they can procreate. It is a mass of cells. It does not constitute the characteristics of life. Now I have a great deal of respect for people who do fight for this cause. I can see the nobility of the cause. However, where are you guys at when the child is born. You don't want to spend money from your taxes to educate this child that the parent didn't want. Are you saying we need more underfed, poverity stricken children on earth. Alot of the trouble that we have today is because we have started to reach the carrying capacity of the world. Scientist think that the earth could support 15 billion people. Now if every one of these people had the standard of life that Americans have we have already passed that threshold. Does the quality of life matter to the pro-life crowd, because if it did we wouldn't ***** about socialized medicine or public education. That's it in a nutshell. If you guys truly cared about those children why would you ***** about making sure that kid has chance once it's born.

Now one argument I can make for the pro-life people in my mind is we are seriously depleting the gene pool. Who are the people getting the abortions? The well-educated ? Now in my mind I shouldn't have used education because it really is a socio-econmic question. But, there is evidence that I.Q. is a genetic trait. The Minnesota twin study bears this assumption. So I guess it boils down to this, do we as a nation think its smart to have unwanted children in masses?

The baby "their" body?

Dogger Wrote:Abortion is such a tough topic. I've debated this many times with myself. here's is what I have come up with and I know it's a simplistic way of viewing things, but how can you tell someone else what to do with THEIR BODY. On one hand we are for individual rights and on the other hand we want to tell other people of when they can procreate. It is a mass of cells. It does not constitute the characteristics of life. Now I have a great deal of respect for people who do fight for this cause. I can see the nobility of the cause. However, where are you guys at when the child is born. You don't want to spend money from your taxes to educate this child that the parent didn't want. Are you saying we need more underfed, poverity stricken children on earth. Alot of the trouble that we have today is because we have started to reach the carrying capacity of the world. Scientist think that the earth could support 15 billion people. Now if every one of these people had the standard of life that Americans have we have already passed that threshold. Does the quality of life matter to the pro-life crowd, because if it did we wouldn't ***** about socialized medicine or public education. That's it in a nutshell. If you guys truly cared about those children why would you ***** about making sure that kid has chance once it's born.

Now one argument I can make for the pro-life people in my mind is we are seriously depleting the gene pool. Who are the people getting the abortions? The well-educated ? Now in my mind I shouldn't have used education because it really is a socio-econmic question. But, there is evidence that I.Q. is a genetic trait. The Minnesota twin study bears this assumption. So I guess it boils down to this, do we as a nation think its smart to have unwanted children in masses?

My thoughts.

1. Such a decision affects more than just 1 body. It affects at least 2 bodies, and the unborn baby is about as helpless as a person can be. The law is there to protect these people.


2. Saying it is a mass of cells may work for the first 8 weeks, but after seeing the BBC slideshow, it's tough to believe it's not a person after that point.
"It does not constitute the characteristics of life. " Please read the definition of life that I posted and correct me where I'm wrong. If you teach science you are perhaps familiar w/ this topic.

3. This isn't interfering w/ procreation. In fact most pro-life folks say that's when the choice should be made. Plenty of birth control methods exist. This is way after that event.

4. The unwanted children argument doesn't really jive w/ reality. Look at the outrageously long lines for adoption. You ask, "where are you when the baby is born?" Yikes! I could put you in touch w/ thousands of folks who'd like to care for that baby.

5. As for supporting life on the planet, this is tough to evaluate. 6.5 billion was supposed to strain resources to the limit...yet the world is more prosperous than ever. Most impoverished areas are that way b/c of oppresive rulers and corrupt gov'ts. Even so, I suspect that having a child versus abortion will not have a huge affect on the population, simply b/c having a child reduces the number of pregnancies. You don't get pregnant again while carrying the child...and you don't have the energy while it's a baby :) . The latter point is only a half joke.

6. Giving the baby a chance once it's born...that's suggesting we commit this evil b/c of all the other evils. Two wrongs don't make a right in this case. It's also an unfair argument b/c the pro-life folks have plenty of ideas for the problems you cite. Often w/ credible evidence to say those ideas are valid and will work!

I appreciate there are extremists w/in the pro-life movement who'd like to control everybody's every action. They make me uncomfortable too. However, I believe they are a very small minority, and few people are really going to buy into those doctrines should they accept the pro-life position. The two positions are NOT required to go together.

Dogger, I see you point. I think abortion is wrong, but I'm not going to enforce my belief system on other people. So in that case you are right that I don't think we should be telling other people what to do (with their bodies, or just what to do in general). I do think that people who claim that their freedom of choice is being restricted are incorrect, however. It seems to me that they made a choice that led the to being pregnant. That choice was made when they decided to have sex without taking the proper precautions. obviously this does not apply to rape or cases when the mother is in danger of dying due to the pregnancy. Those are extreme cases which deserve a much more thoguht. In the end it is a moral decision made by the individual, and my opinion shouldn't matter.

Just my two cents.

RebelKev Wrote:The baby "their" body?

i have never had a problem with women doing what they want to to their bodies. If a woman wants to scar her uterus then she has that right. I just feel sorry for the poor thing inside that will never have a chance to live a full life.

Fanatical Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:The baby "their" body?

i have never had a problem with women doing what they want to to their bodies. If a woman wants to scar her uterus then she has that right. I just feel sorry for the poor thing inside that will never have a chance to live a full life.

That's my contention as well. You didn't think I supported abortion, did you?

Quote: Saying it is a mass of cells may work for the first 8 weeks, but after seeing the BBC slideshow, it's tough to believe it's not a person after that point.
"It does not constitute the characteristics of life. " Please read the definition of life that I posted and correct me where I'm wrong. If you teach science you are perhaps familiar w/ this topic.

Seven characteristics of life.
Life has to have all seven to be considered living. For example a car is highly organized but it dos not fulfill the other criteria

Comprised of cells- check

Has the ability to grow- Check

Uses Energy- Check

Has the ability to reproduce on its own (it's species)- check

Has the ability to adapt- I don't think the mass of cells can adapt

Can respond to it's environment- It can't respond like a tumor cell can't respond

Highly organized- I don't think a mass of cells are highly organized. The fetus can not live on it's own

Now some middle ground can be had here. In my view once there is electrical impulses coming from the brain I do think you can call it life. 12th or 13th week. IMHO you could start calling it life then. There's a lot of ethical criteria once that happens.

Quote: The unwanted children argument doesn't really jive w/ reality. Look at the outrageously long lines for adoption. You ask, "where are you when the baby is born?" Yikes! I could put you in touch w/ thousands of folks who'd like to care for that baby.

If this is this case why do we have sooooo many kids in children services. A lot of kids are placed in foster homes and if you are familiar with any kids who have been bounced around these places it is scary. I coach football and a 10th grade linebacker whose father committed suicide has been bounced around like three different times. A "good" foster family is trying to straighten the young man's life out but he has some real horror stories if you know what I mean. We have alot of kid's today Torch without families and if you know of thousands of people who would like to take these kids in tell them to call their county children services. There's plenty of kids.

Where are these criteria and who determines them?

Quote:Has the ability to adapt-&nbsp; I don't think the mass of cells can adapt

Yes. Studies have shown that the fetus will adapt to low levels of essential nutrients and also conduct redistribution of cardiac output to critical organs (heart, brain and adrenal gland) when necessary.

Check

Quote:Can respond to it's environment-&nbsp; It can't respond&nbsp; like a tumor cell can't respond

If above is true, this one must be true as well. However studies have also show that a fetus as little as 16 weeks old can respond to sound and music. By nine weeks, a developing fetus can hiccup and react to loud noises

I've also seen pictures of a fetus reacting to an abortion instrument coming towards it.

Check

Quote:Highly organized-&nbsp; I don't think a mass of cells are highly organized.

Cells in and of themselves are highly organized. And the process of a fetus growing is also very organized. It couldn't form a baby if it weren't. The process of forming a baby is HIGHLY organized, going through a specific and measurable process. This process in carried out by these cells, thus is highly organized.

Check.

Quote:The fetus can not live on it's own.

Most conjoined twins can't live on their own, can we kill them?
People who are on life support can't live on their own, can we kill them?
Stephen Hawking can't live on his own, can we kill him?

A fetus can, in fact, meet all of the above criteria. And even if you are skeptical, is it not better to error on the side of caution, not killing another human being?

DrTorch Wrote:2. Saying it is a mass of cells may work for the first 8 weeks, but after seeing the BBC slideshow, it's tough to believe it's not a person after that point.

thats why i posted the link, very powerful stuff to me,these images are amazing. how can any one look at the picture below and say that aborting this is not the taking of a human life.

Babies produce a motion approximating to
yawning from as early as 12 weeks' pregnancy.

Niner-

If you supported taking care of these kids after birth I could see your point. Yet, your the same guy who ******* about public education and socialized medicine. Do you care about that fetus's quality of life? Is that something that registers with you? Don't give me that there are lines miles long for adoptions when we have millions of kids today in foster homes that society has shown they want no part of To me it is alot more cruel to put a child on earth with a parent that does not want it. How can it get any more simpler than that.

I have to tell you though that image of a fetus reacting to an abortion instrument gives me the creeps. It's a moral pandora's box. I don't think there is an answer. Every case is unique in it's own right. People who get abortions do it for their own reasons and you nor I have the right to tell other people what to do with their own body.

Guys,

I can totally see the pro-life's side, but you have to remember pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion.

Dogger Wrote:&nbsp; &nbsp; but you have to remember pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion.

?????

That may be one of the dumbest statements I have ever read. I felt 20+ IQ points go flying on that one.

Pro-Choice = Pro-Abortion

Quote:If you supported taking care of these kids after birth I could see your point.

Don't you ever make an assumption about what I do and don't support. If you want to know, ask me, but don't ASSume. And don't try to insinuate I'm some sort of heartless creep who doesn't care about anything but money.

I personally think you're out too lunch on practically every issue, but I would never make the jump to say you were heartless and didn't value people. I'll thank you not to insinuate I value life any less than you do. If you can't extend me that courtesy, I'm happy to ignore your ***.

Quote:Yet, your the same guy who ******* about public education and socialized medicine.&nbsp; Do you care about that fetus's quality of life?&nbsp; Is that something that registers with you?

Yes, I care more than you know. I care enough to know government isn't the answer. I care enough to know that throwing countless billions of dollars down a hole that's trillions deep already isn't the answer to fixing our schools. I care enough to know that government welfare checks don't increase a kids quality of life, they keep it subjected to the low quality they already find themselves in.

I'm also rational enough to know that government isn't the cure for everything that ailes society today. It only makes things worse. Government is a band aid that covers a wound that needs stitches.

Quote: Don't give me that there are lines miles long for adoptions when we have millions of kids today in foster homes that society has shown they want no part of.

I see, so let's just kill them before they're born. Let's answer societies lack of personal responsibility and accountability with eliminating that which they refuse to take responsibility for. Perfect answer.

Quote: To me it is alot more cruel to put a child on earth with a parent that does not want it.&nbsp; How can it get any more simpler than that.

I see, so killing it is the answer. Makes perfect sense. How bout this instead, people take responsibility for themselves. WHOA!! There's a novel concept. Take precautions and it won't be an issue.

Why is it that the life of a baby outside the womb is worth so much more to you than the one inside it? Is it out of sight out of mind? Human life is precious and should be treated as such in all instances, be it born or unborn.

How bout instead of trying to insinuate I'm a heartless ******* you focus on the SCIENTIFIC arguments I posted contradicting your previous assertions about life. If you can't, fine, just conceid you're wrong and find a new pet theory as to why killing a fetus is ok.

GrayBeard, after the nuke half America quote I don't think you can afford to lose to many more I.Q pts. so tried to read this slowly.

Just because someone supports letting someone else choose (ie.choice) have an abortion doesn't necessarily mean they would choose an abortion for themselves. They are pro (CHOICE) not pro abortion.

Dogger Wrote:GrayBeard, after the nuke half America quote I don't think you can afford to lose to many more I.Q pts. so tried to read this slowly.

Just because someone supports letting someone else choose (ie.choice) have an abortion doesn't necessarily mean they would choose an abortion for themselves. They are pro (CHOICE) not pro abortion.

It's hard to read with all the gramatical errors, but I get what you are getting at. You wouldn't have an abortion yourself, but it is OK for everyone else to have an abortion (I know not your concern or problem with those other people having abortions). Also, you seem to be worried about all those kids in orphanages. I think you said it is better for them to not exist at all than to exist in an orphanage. So, do you support euthanasia for those that are subjected to orphanages? If not, can you give me a valid reason for why euthanasia is wrong but abortions are not? Hey, both options could alleviate the orphanage issue!


By the way, the "nuke half the US" comment was just a humerous point, nothing serious, but maybe you have aborted your sense of humor and did not get it!

DrTorch Wrote:

Trooper Wrote:Let's don't get into this.............

Yes, you'd be best to avoid this because:

1. You brought it up, and were totally faced

2. You can only list a bunch of verses out of context

3. Even out of context, they don't agree w/ your original assertion, so why would you even reference them?

4. Your original point was shown to be patently absurd such that you cannot return to it.

And while you're looking things up, take a look at Prov 17:28.

It's hard to argue with someone who declares the opinions as out of context just because it differs from their opinion.

Just like someone who dismissed all polls as untrue on this thread earlier. How 'bout a little evidence.

The liberals are always called upon to prove their side, the cons always just seem to "know" what's right and can summarily dismiss any facts provided.

"Belief that "a human being exists at conception" is a matter of faith, not fact. Legislating antiabortion faith would be as immoral and unAmerican as passing a law that all citizens must attend Catholic mass!"



Is the "morning after pill" an abortion?

Does a woman become pregnant during intercourse? How do you know when the sperm and egg unite during any pregnancy? It can happen up to 72 hours after intercourse.

I said let's don't get into this because the interpretation of the Bible is far too ambiguous to argue in this sense. The Bible should be a personal thing to anyone who reads it and I don't want to see it dragged through this subject again. I can throw verses at you all day long just as I'm sure you could hurl them back.

Faced...hardly,

That's why as far as abortion goes I believe in minding my own business.

1 Thessalonians 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you.

(of course you're not going to like that one either)

No one knows the circumstances for which another person seeks an abortion. So until one has been in their shoes one needs to mind their own business too.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:If you supported taking care of these kids after birth I could see your point.

Don't you ever make an assumption about what I do and don't support. If you want to know, ask me, but don't ASSume. And don't try to insinuate I'm some sort of heartless creep who doesn't care about anything but money.

I personally think you're out too lunch on practically every issue, but I would never make the jump to say you were heartless and didn't value people. I'll thank you not to insinuate I value life any less than you do. If you can't extend me that courtesy, I'm happy to ignore your ***.

Quote:Yet, your the same guy who ******* about public education and socialized medicine.  Do you care about that fetus's quality of life?  Is that something that registers with you?

Yes, I care more than you know. I care enough to know government isn't the answer. I care enough to know that throwing countless billions of dollars down a hole that's trillions deep already isn't the answer to fixing our schools. I care enough to know that government welfare checks don't increase a kids quality of life, they keep it subjected to the low quality they already find themselves in.

I'm also rational enough to know that government isn't the cure for everything that ailes society today. It only makes things worse. Government is a band aid that covers a wound that needs stitches.

Quote: Don't give me that there are lines miles long for adoptions when we have millions of kids today in foster homes that society has shown they want no part of.

I see, so let's just kill them before they're born. Let's answer societies lack of personal responsibility and accountability with eliminating that which they refuse to take responsibility for. Perfect answer.

Quote: To me it is alot more cruel to put a child on earth with a parent that does not want it.  How can it get any more simpler than that.

I see, so killing it is the answer. Makes perfect sense. How bout this instead, people take responsibility for themselves. WHOA!! There's a novel concept. Take precautions and it won't be an issue.

Why is it that the life of a baby outside the womb is worth so much more to you than the one inside it? Is it out of sight out of mind? Human life is precious and should be treated as such in all instances, be it born or unborn.

How bout instead of trying to insinuate I'm a heartless ******* you focus on the SCIENTIFIC arguments I posted contradicting your previous assertions about life. If you can't, fine, just conceid you're wrong and find a new pet theory as to why killing a fetus is ok.

"I'm also rational enough to know that government isn't the cure for everything that ailes society today. It only makes things worse. Government is a band aid that covers a wound that needs stitches."

Then the government needs to stay out of it's citizens' private lives????????????

You can't have it both ways.

Niner-

Quote:Yes, I care more than you know. I care enough to know government isn't the answer. I care enough to know that throwing countless billions of dollars down a hole that's trillions deep already isn't the answer to fixing our schools. I care enough to know that government welfare checks don't increase a kids quality of life, they keep it subjected to the low quality they already find themselves in.

In areas where an influx of money came into a school district (ie. a power plant, a new factory, something along these line) without exception scores and the quality of education goes up drastically. There's a Bill Moyer video on the state of our Nation's schools that you should watch. Just by saying that you don't wish to throw money at the problem is a lame *** excuse for ignoring the problem. The problem with our schools is that many of them are severely underfunded. Now you can keep living in your world of denial and say you care about kids but you don't want to see good hard money being thrown after bad. Just throwing it down the drain which many of the Republican crowd likes to bring up when they talk about accountability of schools.

Now the tone you take with me is much more condescendingand insulting than I have ever taken with you. To each their own. All I said is that if you supported some of these things I have been arguing about for the past three months I could maybe see your side more. That's what LOGICAL people try to do. Whenever I write something I first try to put myself in the other's shoe to try to see why people think that way. You never try to see the other side. Your moral superiority complex almost sickens me. I do not have all the answers and I enjoy reading other people's ideas and try to formulate my own opinion. When I disagree with someone I try to tell them why. I bet you were beat up a lot as a kid. Your mouthy and you don't try to see anyone else's opinion and another thing I do NOT support welfare and quit bringing it up when you respond to me.