I don't think it is semantics at all......He has an incredibly valid point. You are arguing that a baby is not alive until it reaches term/birth, yet you call it a child!!?? Something definitely wrong with that.Marconius wrote:
Well, I'm done here if all you are going to do is point out semantics.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There you go. I might be picking at semantics here, but that has to be a typo, if you are to retain any credibility in your argument.Marconius wrote:
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
Yet that is what semantics are. You might not think it is. You may think the argument inappropriate, but it does not change the fact it is about semantics. Semantics are about meaning and interpretation of meaning, which exactly his point. It IS semantics, that is undeniable.lowing wrote:
I don't think it is semantics at all......He has an incredibly valid point. You are arguing that a baby is not alive until it reaches term/birth, yet you call it a child!!?? Something definitely wrong with that.Marconius wrote:
Well, I'm done here if all you are going to do is point out semantics.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
There you go. I might be picking at semantics here, but that has to be a typo, if you are to retain any credibility in your argument.
How old are you?Masques wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted already, but for those of you that are anti-choice and say that abortion is murder (or a similar analogue), should there be prison sentences for those involved?
If it is indeed murder (or at least manslaughter) then it logically follows that there should be some criminal punishment for those (doctors and mothers) that get abortion. If you're unwilling to go that distance (ie. if criminal penalties are anything less than that which murder normally incurs) then it follows that either those participating in abortion are somehow bereft of moral agency and thus cannot be held responsible or that which is aborted is not a person under legal convention.
Ok, whatever. The thing is (I can't believe I have to explain this) right now, abortion is legal. Pro-Life/Anit-Abortion people think it should be illegal. If it were illegal and someone got an abortion, than yes, the parties involved (mother, doctor, etc.) would face legal charges for breaking the law.
However, like I said, according to our *[sarcasm]*WONDERFUL*[/sarcasm] legal system, abortion is not murder and is the choice of the mother. So, if someone wants an abortion, they get one. And since they are not breaking the law, they do not go to jail.
Hope this helps.
No in this case it is about what you SAY and DON'T SAY, not what you mean and don't mean..........You don't punctuate your argument that a fetus is not a child, by referring to it as a child.Bertster7 wrote:
Yet that is what semantics are. You might not think it is. You may think the argument inappropriate, but it does not change the fact it is about semantics. Semantics are about meaning and interpretation of meaning, which exactly his point. It IS semantics, that is undeniable.lowing wrote:
I don't think it is semantics at all......He has an incredibly valid point. You are arguing that a baby is not alive until it reaches term/birth, yet you call it a child!!?? Something definitely wrong with that.Marconius wrote:
Well, I'm done here if all you are going to do is point out semantics.
Hey now, how do you know the average pro-lifer doesn't support free adoption? Adoption is a large part of the pro-life position and I support it wholeheartedly. I personally know 3 couples in my circle of friends alone, that can't have children and desperately want a child. They are all looking at adoption as the next option. Think how many couples that would be nationwide!Turquoise wrote:
Well, I'm glad you personally support that possibility, but I bet if you were to ask the average pro-lifer, they wouldn't be so thoughtful.lowing wrote:
If you remember, from other threads, I fully support helping those that can not help themselves. If I am not mistaken I included children as an example. There are a lot of responsible people out there who can not have kids that would adopt them. The major set back for this is, of course, the bureaucracy, red tape and cost. I feel adopting a child to wanting, responsible parents, should be free.Turquoise wrote:
If you want to get rid of abortion, you'll see a lot more kids being put up for adoption. This means more money will be needed to run orphanages. Are you prepared to fund state institutions like these more?
Lowing is right, our society won't ask parents to take responsibility and that is the main problem here. We allow them the easy out of abortion if the child is "inconvenient". I'd rather have living kids than dead babies anyday. Someone may have aborted the kid who was going to discover the cure for cancer or invent a lifechanging technology. If we need the government to help take care of the children, so be it. The better alternative, as lowing suggested, would be removing the bureaucracy and red tape and eliminating the money involved, thereby giving loving families easier access to a child to call their own.
That doesn't change the meaning of the word semantics. You are wrong about the usage of the word semantics. Not that that has any bearing on the argument, but saying it is not semantics when it clearly is is just foolish.lowing wrote:
No in this case it is about what you SAY and DON'T SAY, not what you mean and don't mean..........You don't punctuate your argument that a fetus is not a child, by referring to it as a child.Bertster7 wrote:
Yet that is what semantics are. You might not think it is. You may think the argument inappropriate, but it does not change the fact it is about semantics. Semantics are about meaning and interpretation of meaning, which exactly his point. It IS semantics, that is undeniable.lowing wrote:
I don't think it is semantics at all......He has an incredibly valid point. You are arguing that a baby is not alive until it reaches term/birth, yet you call it a child!!?? Something definitely wrong with that.
If you were about 16 years old, and a girl(maybe you are one I don't know) and you are pregnant and you could either fuck up your entire life, or have an abortion, what would you do?Chief_(OwNaGe) wrote:
abortion sucks, its just murder with a different name.
IRONCHEF wrote:
I think the outrage is considerably less because the majority of Americans support abortion. I do in the event of serious or life threatening complications to the mother and possibly in the event of rape and incest.Stingray24 wrote:
America is outraged over deaths in war, but cannot muster defense for the most vulnerable in our society – infants.
Also, the lives being lost in warfare are developed lives where people have much more intimate attachment than they would with a 2-40 week old fetus.
And just a personal note regarding when "I" think it's a human being...I believe that when the heart beats (2 weeks, actually), it's a living soul. I believe that when the spirit (something created by God) goes into the "mortal tabernacle", or fetus, it's a living soul. But I also believe the value of mom is higher than that soul. If I am to choose between my wife and one of my kids, sadly i have to chose my wife. Same application for choosing an abortion.
But the people doing abortion as a means of lazy birth control, yes, those people are killers and they will have their day of accountability. And on the same hand, someone bombing the clinic that performs that abortion, or that person's home or car is JUST as guilty of murder as said aborting mother.
Thank God someone else agrees with me. I personally am tired of people bitching about how it is wrong. I agree 100% with what Ironchef said. Sometimes it is wrong, if the females just dont care and use it as a form of birth control. There are some instances where it is right. If someone is raped, they should be allowed to have an abortion. I dont agree with people bringing a child into the world if the child cant have a decent life. They could essentially put it up for adoption, but personally, if it were me, and my g/f (or when shes my wife) gets pregnant (by accident) and we couldnt afford it, or couldnt provide a decent life for it, I personally couldnt give up my own kid for adoption.Marconius wrote:
It's no one's business to legislate on. You violate the privacy rights of the mother if you start assigning legalities to fetuses.
There are many instances when abortions are necessary, and there are many instances where abortions might seem morally wrong. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Stop trying to legislate morality.
Abortion has positive reasons to use it...but people who do it just for the sake of wanting to have sex all the time and dont give a shit about themselves, that I see as wrong. I dont think it should be outlawed either, because if it is outlawed, that will just lead to numerous amounts of, for lack of better term, "do it yourself" abortions and ultimately result in more problems, especially for the would be mother.
What I was trying to discern was how far those that are anti-abortion would be willing to go for a ban. I realize the legal status of abortion in the US, but I don't think that those that equate abortion with murder fully understand the implication of their rhetoric.MastersMom wrote:
How old are you?Masques wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted already, but for those of you that are anti-choice and say that abortion is murder (or a similar analogue), should there be prison sentences for those involved?
If it is indeed murder (or at least manslaughter) then it logically follows that there should be some criminal punishment for those (doctors and mothers) that get abortion. If you're unwilling to go that distance (ie. if criminal penalties are anything less than that which murder normally incurs) then it follows that either those participating in abortion are somehow bereft of moral agency and thus cannot be held responsible or that which is aborted is not a person under legal convention.
Ok, whatever. The thing is (I can't believe I have to explain this) right now, abortion is legal. Pro-Life/Anit-Abortion people think it should be illegal. If it were illegal and someone got an abortion, than yes, the parties involved (mother, doctor, etc.) would face legal charges for breaking the law.
However, like I said, according to our *[sarcasm]*WONDERFUL*[/sarcasm] legal system, abortion is not murder and is the choice of the mother. So, if someone wants an abortion, they get one. And since they are not breaking the law, they do not go to jail.
Hope this helps.
Most people that I've encountered that are anti-abortion don't think their position through to its logical end or are uncomfortable with all that the little rhetorical device of abortion equaling murder implies (ie. death for those that seek abortions or at least convicion for attempted murder).
This also brings up other issues surrounding pregnancy. Namely, the issue of nutrition and possibly, drug use. If a woman drinks alcohol while pregnant is she committing assault? Attempted murder? Is she providing alcohol to a minor? If a fetus is considered a "person" under US law is incarcerating a pregnant woman also incarcerating the fetus without charge (a violation of habeas corpus)?
These are but a few issues that will have to be resolved (in one way or another) if foetii are classified as persons.
could you imagine how many of those 47 million that were aborted would be raised by welfare? would go to orphanages? Be born to teenage mothers with no one to call dad.. Were born from the result of a rape? im not pro-abortion or pro-life, i think you should have the right to choose (pro-choice), people make mistakes, especially uneducated people, and some people have MULTIPLE abortionsm it is sad, but its better for the society as a whole
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.lowing wrote:
You do not have children, obviously, therefore, not qualified to have an educated opinion.Marconius wrote:
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
Every human is qualified to have an educated opinion, because it is just that - EDUCATED.
Marconius may or may not have children, either way, it is largely irrelevent, and in fact not having children probably gives him a more objective viewpoint, because parents cannot help but think "would I not want have had my living son/daughter(s) in this world?" after they've developed a parental bond with their child(ren).
Because in that case the mother has made the decision to carry that fetus to term. It is the mother-fetus symbiot that is the victim.Clark W Griswald wrote:
I would really like an answer from a few of you.Clark W Griswald wrote:
So, if a guy punches a women in the stomach when she is pregnant, why is the punishment more severe? And if she miscarries because of that punch, that person would be in big trouble. Care to explain why and then tell me it is not a life?
To go off on a complete tangent (sorry, but I just had to)...jonsimon wrote:
Some of my friends aren't religious (dunno if they're agnostic of atheist, but I don't think they practice anything).
Maybe, like me, they're neither - and we don't 'practice' - we're experts.
I don't get abortion really, can't the girl just have the baby and put the baby in an adoption agency? Seems wrong to just kill it like they do.
And still we have over 300 million in the states and have a problem feeding everyone who is alive... I don't think we're killing enough baby's or old people for that matter.Stingray24 wrote:
• 3,500 babies aborted daily
• 24,500 weekly
• 105,000 monthly
• 1,277,500 yearly
Total since Roe v. Wade = 47 million in the United States alone
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-11-03 12:20:50)
It's up to the god damn mother. It should not be the governments job to tell a woman what is and isn't a human, when it is still inside her body. I'm not saying I support it, but people need to realize the difference between "Supporting the right to abortion" and "Supporting abortion".
I don't support it, but I support the right. It's not my place to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
I don't support it, but I support the right. It's not my place to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body.
Seriously thought think about the children who are born, if the population was not allowed to control itself we bring ourselves closer to destroying the earth. With Medical Science where it is the population is growing more then it has ever before, and we're not advanced enough yet to colonize different planets.
We shoot deer to keep control of there population, so they don't starve themself, why shouldn't we control ours?
We shoot deer to keep control of there population, so they don't starve themself, why shouldn't we control ours?
Beautiful! It's so simple! Just make the women carry their babies fetuses all the way through term! Brilliant!FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
I don't get abortion really, can't the girl just have the baby and put the baby in an adoption agency? Seems wrong to just kill it like they do.
*facepalm*
Brilliant conversationalist you are indeed! And you're quite insulting so please stop and just give your opinion.THESAVAGE1 wrote:
Hey Stingray
Deleted by Mod. If you can't give your opinion with having to resort to name calling and insults, keep it to yourself.
Darth_Fleder
no, it gives him a jaded view point. Marconious may know about the moon, but since he has never been there he is QUALIFIED to tell me what it feels like to BE there.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.lowing wrote:
You do not have children, obviously, therefore, not qualified to have an educated opinion.Marconius wrote:
No, it was just a way to see where you stand on when the fetus becomes a baby. Applying murder and already-born analogies to fetuses won't work on those who don't think like you, as it's just ridiculous.
People will think I'm repulsive, and I'll keep on thinking that it's not your decision to make on what a woman does with her child.
Every human is qualified to have an educated opinion, because it is just that - EDUCATED.
Marconius may or may not have children, either way, it is largely irrelevent, and in fact not having children probably gives him a more objective viewpoint, because parents cannot help but think "would I not want have had my living son/daughter(s) in this world?" after they've developed a parental bond with their child(ren).
SOmething happens to a (responsible) person who is becomes a parent........I swore I never wanted kids or be married and all that bullshit as well when I was in my 20's. Your attitude changes as you get older. He is talking out of his ass because he IS NOT a father............and if he is a father, god help his kids.
You're honest, I'll give you that. The mindset involved in abortion will eventually lead to the elimination of elderly and mentally handicapped. I believe there's a thread in here with people advocating exactly that. We do not value human life as it begins, so it follows that we will end it when we feel like it at some point. Sad. No wonder kids shoot up their schools with no value placed on their lives from the beginning.cpt.fass1 wrote:
And still we have over 300 million in the states and have a problem feeding everyone who is alive... I don't think we're killing enough baby's or old people for that matter.Stingray24 wrote:
• 3,500 babies aborted daily
• 24,500 weekly
• 105,000 monthly
• 1,277,500 yearly
Total since Roe v. Wade = 47 million in the United States alone
That actually has nothing to do with the value given to life, it has to do with value of life.. If the populatioin keeps growing the way it is, it will turn into chaos. There will not be enough food, and natural resources to support the population. So it will turn into a postman type world..Stingray24 wrote:
You're honest, I'll give you that. The mindset involved in abortion will eventually lead to the elimination of elderly and mentally handicapped. I believe there's a thread in here with people advocating exactly that. We do not value human life as it begins, so it follows that we will end it when we feel like it at some point. Sad. No wonder kids shoot up their schools with no value placed on their lives from the beginning.cpt.fass1 wrote:
And still we have over 300 million in the states and have a problem feeding everyone who is alive... I don't think we're killing enough baby's or old people for that matter.Stingray24 wrote:
• 3,500 babies aborted daily
• 24,500 weekly
• 105,000 monthly
• 1,277,500 yearly
Total since Roe v. Wade = 47 million in the United States alone
I belive in control so that the children who are born actually have a chance at a future. People right now are self endulgent(not all) and want what they want, so as appose to having one to two children, they end up creating alot more which ups our population. A population should be self supstaining, but due to technology a family in Alaska who could under natural conditions only realistically have one to two children can now produce and support more. Does this make sense?
Since we've learned to control our enviroment, our enviroment cannot control us anymore which is why we are having such a population explosion. IMO
Edited to make line breaks
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2006-11-03 14:50:05)
And that is the real debate in a nutshell. If you value life, the potential life of a fetus/baby/blob of tissue, then you'll decide in favor of it. It's not a difficult topic at all. If I may steal a lie from Bush and use it properly, I'd say that I "believe in a culture of life, not death."Stingray24 wrote:
No wonder kids shoot up their schools with no value placed on their lives from the beginning.
Those who do not value life, the lives of others, the life long potential of a fetus, will naturally choose the abortion stance. Why wouldn't you? I think ALL people need to come and play with my small son Jackson (18 mos) and after a few minutes you will think differently about how quick you will be to end life.
This "theory" is a fun one to see people quote, especially the spinning of it towards "the postman" type world as you did.cpt.fass1 wrote:
If the populatioin keeps growing the way it is, it will turn into chaos. There will not be enough food, and natural resources to support the population. So it will turn into a postman type world..
People have been stabbing at population control for many hundreds of years.
It's not like taking a shit, you know. Quite a long and painful process.FrankieSpankie3388 wrote:
I don't get abortion really, can't the girl just have the baby and put the baby in an adoption agency? Seems wrong to just kill it like they do.
A recent figure I heard was that up to 45% of children were unplanned/unwanted, and that's with abortion. I agree with the opinion that abortion should be allowed, up to a reasonable point somewhere in the region of 16-24 weeks. The far end of the spectrum being determined by any exacerbating circumstances.
My wife is due to give birth next week, I'll let you all know if my opinion changes then