quote:

---

Why Don't You Get A Life" That's A Much Better Quote Paintball, I Mean PaintBucket.

---

Me and you seem like we could be good friends. We're both two people who should be in Juvyee.

[links removed]

[This message was edited by YNmoderator on May 24, 2004 at 05:23 PM.]

quote:

---

But the women do have a choice, have sex and have baby
or
not have sex and not have baby.

---

Two Points.

[links removed]

[This message was edited by YNmoderator on May 24, 2004 at 05:25 PM.]

JoeyLetter, stop spamming! You're ruining our boards and it's importance that it means to us! Nobody likes it.

Oh, and I think abortion is wrong because it goes against the Bible. But the women do have a choice, have sex and have baby
or
not have sex and not have baby.

[links removed]

[This message was edited by YNmoderator on May 24, 2004 at 05:25 PM.]

quote:

---

Conception is the beginning, but it is not the separate life.

So, going by the logic of the types of cells and whether or not they can even be considered a "human" at those points, means that the mass of cells that most people say are ok to abort really are ok to abort, seeing as they are not "human" until later.

---

It is a reproducing unit of cells with a unique genetic code from the mother. It could be considered a parasite, but is is also not part of her body. It is a forgien entity. It is human gentically, you cannot dispute that. The potential for full fledged devlopment is also there, which separates it from, say, a lump of random flesh (which is what many people compare it to). However as you pointed out the early stages of development are more or less just a featurless group of cells. To me it has worth. However as I stated before, it is still ambigous enough that I could live with legalized abortions at these stages.

quote:

---

You should listen to Rito's statement, because what she is saying is true. The baby-mother relationship is a symbiotic relationship. Babies are part of a parasitic relationship until they are able to be taken out and can live on their own. A parasite is something that lives in or on another organism and drains its resources without contributing anything back to the organism. So the fetus technically is a parasite until it can live on its own.

---

And my major point is that it can live on its own in the later stages of devlopment. Or even mid-stages if proper medical care is taken. A guy on my dorm floor was born 3 months early. He's perfectly healthy today. Our technology in this feild is getting greater and more effecient every year. The point is that it is natural for a fetus to be parasitic, but the fact that it is does not give the mother the right to kill it if it is a near fully developed human child.
It may have parasitic traits, but it is still a human parasite, and should be treated as a human would. It's not a tapeworm.

quote:

---

I'm not trying to change your mind, I am just trying to make you understand that the some of points the others are giving you really are valid.

---

I just wish they could state them more clearly. I know many people out there who are told "The fetus is a parasite" and then blindly parrot it without giving it much thought. I don't think that was the case with rito, however she did come off like that in the post (at least to me). I apologize.

If you look at the original post:

quote:

---

It is taking from the mother without giving anything back, and therefore the mother should have the choice to get rid of it or not.

---

She directly uses the fact that the child is not giving anything back as justification for abortion. However, even if she meant the parasitic nature of the fetus is reason enough the arguements is still flawed for the reasons I pointed out above, at least late-mid term.

Dr. SL

quote:

---

Conception is technically the begining of a seperate life, however it's clear that's not going to work with some of your out there who think that it's not a fully protected human life.

---

Conception is the beginning, but it is not the separate life.

The single cell and a couple of cells after it are totipotent cells. This means that they have the potential to become cells that form the entire human body. However, they are not the human body, they are only cells, so they are not human and cannot be thought to be so.

The totipotent cells then become pluripotent cells. This means they can become most of the cells in the human body, but definitely not all of them. At this point, the cells are still not the human body; they are only cells that have the potential to become cells that form the entire human body. So at this point in time the mass of cells cannot be seen as a human.

The pluripotent cells then become multipotent cells, meaning they can become an endless supply of cells for specific organs (such as red bone marrow that produce blood cells for your whole life, the cells that produce your never-ending layers of skin, etc). At this point one could consider the mass of cells a human, but this stage is only later into development.

So, going by the logic of the types of cells and whether or not they can even be considered a "human" at those points, means that the mass of cells that most people say are ok to abort really are ok to abort, seeing as they are not "human" until later.

You should listen to Rito's statement, because what she is saying is true. The baby-mother relationship is a symbiotic relationship. Babies are part of a parasitic relationship until they are able to be taken out and can live on their own. A parasite is something that lives in or on another organism and drains its resources without contributing anything back to the organism. So the fetus technically is a parasite until it can live on its own.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I am just trying to make you understand that the some of points the others are giving you really are valid.

"By that analogy, then every child who has not contriubuted something to thier parents can be killed at any time."

No, it means that every embryo who relies on a woman's uterus to survive is a parasite. A born child (even a fetus at a certain point in pregnancy, if removed from the mother) can breathe, eat, and drink by itself. Yes, a young child needs someone to prepare it food or whatnot, but that person does not nessicarily mean the mother. I think you missed what I was trying to say.

-rito

quote:

---

What the hell are you talking about? There are very few deaths that aren't painful...

---

OK maybe that didn't make much sense but seriously, everybody is gonna die some kinda death and most will be painful. So let the kid die the way it is supposed to rather than forcing its death. Oh and also, abortions aren't painless for the child anyway, so don't say you aren't hurting the child.

quote:

---

The child the woman is beating is protected under the constitution, therefore you should report it as abuse.

---

Actually it's not the constitution that protects them from this, it's child abuse laws. It's certainly under debate what exactly is protected under the consitution.

quote:

---

It is taking from the mother without giving anything back, and therefore the mother should have the choice to get rid of it or not.

---

That's bad logic and therefore a poor example. By that analogy, then every child who has not contriubuted something to thier parents can be killed at any time. Most children really can't do much of anything complex untill age 3 at the earliest. See the flaw now?

You have to find a biological set of circumstances to determine when a fetus beomes a "protected" fetus. The problem I see is that many people use ideological circumstances over the biological ones. Logically, the actual act of birth means little to the phyisical state of the child. Conception is technically the begining of a seperate life, however it's clear that's not going to work with some of your out there who think that it's not a fully protected human life.

"Say you are at a play ground and you see a mother severely beating her child. Would you report it?"

The child the woman is beating is protected under the constitution, therefore you should report it as abuse. An embryo is not however, protected by the constitution (if it were this would not be an issue). The embryo is a parasite until it has developed to a fetus and can survive outside of the mother. It is taking from the mother without giving anything back, and therefore the mother should have the choice to get rid of it or not.

-rito

quote:

---

1.) It's still against their will; paying someone doesn't make what you're paying them to do any easier. 2.) Some people are against what the military stands for, period. They don't want to be in any part of it. Therefore, it's still against their will, even if they're not killing. 3.) If it's the citizen's duty, why is it that only men are drafted?

---

Again, if we're going to discuss this, lets do it elsewhere. Because right now we'll just go off topic. Noisemail me or start another topic. For now i'll say this: It is against my will to pay income tax, but I still do so. Should I be jailed if I choose not to? Also, conciencious objectors do not have to go into the military. They just have to go into one of a list of humanitarian services.

quote:

---

You may find it to be that way, just as I find the way you support the death penalty and war to be more than a bit disturbing.

---

However this analogy fails when you take into acount that I do not support war, or the death penalty .

quote:

---

Like I've said many times before, I support abortion, period.

---

And now we run into trouble...

Abortion period means late term abortion, and partial birth abortion on demand.
Partial birth abortion involves killing the "fetus" as it is being deliverd.

At this point, you cannot make an effective argument between an infant and the "fetus" being born. They are different in location only.
So I think that you would agree that a "fetus" in the process of being born is essentially an infant. Therefore, you ARE killing an infant in this case (and in any case certainly after 8 1/2 months and possibly in any case going back to 6 months).
So by supporting these types of abortions, you are also indirectly supporting on-demand infanticide, or at least the logic behind it. Is this true?

quote:

---

if I had Amniocentesis done, and I found out that my child wasn't developing properly (like their lungs weren't developing, therefore it would not be able to breathe on it's own) or had a disease that would cause a painful death within a few days, I would have it aborted.

---

However, you also support someone aborting a healthy child just on thier own whim.

quote:

---

It's my choice to decide if I want to have an abortion, not someone elses.

---

Alright. Say you are at a play ground and you see a mother severely beating her child. Would you report it? Reporting it would be VERY hypocritical of you. It's her child. It's her choice whether she wants to beat her child or not. Leave her alone, all she wants to do is beat her child, geez mind your own business.

quote:

---

Yeah and how would you know if it was going to have a painful death?

---

What the hell are you talking about? There are very few deaths that aren't painful, and if I had Amniocentesis done, and I found out that my child wasn't developing properly (like their lungs weren't developing, therefore it would not be able to breathe on it's own) or had a disease that would cause a painful death within a few days, I would have it aborted.

quote:

---

If I know my child is going to die a painful death, I would want to get an abortion for three reasons.

---

Yeah and how would you know if it was going to have a painful death? You don't know what it is feeling inside at all. You can't decide its emotions for it. It isn't right.

quote:

---

1.) Soilders are paid and given benefits if they are drafted. 2.) You can be a conciencious objector and go into a non-military service. 3.) A mandatory draft is just like mandatory taxes. You cannot choose to not pay taxes. It is the duty of a citizen to pay taxes. It is also your duty to defend.

---

1.) It's still against their will; paying someone doesn't make what you're paying them to do any easier. 2.) Some people are against what the military stands for, period. They don't want to be in any part of it. Therefore, it's still against their will, even if they're not killing. 3.) If it's the citizen's duty, why is it that only men are drafted?

quote:

---

However, still saying that you always support abortion, period, is a bit disturbing.

---

You may find it to be that way, just as I find the way you support the death penalty and war to be more than a bit disturbing.

quote:

---

Do you support late term abortions, or partial birth abortion?

---

Like I've said many times before, I support abortion, period.

this is one of those things that people can argue about all day long and get no where... as much as i regret to say it, abortion is a choice, and according to present day law, NO ONE can take that choice away...don't get me wrong, i am against abortion in anyway shape or form, i believe there are better options, but i have never been in a situation where it became an issue, and so i honestly can't say what i would do if i were...i'd like to say i was 100% positive that life is the right choice...but how do I know unless im there. But no matter how wrong it may be, i don't believe the choice should be taken away from the women...

quote:

---

Not really a nutcase, more like a Republican *******. And, I guess, when you get down to it, those are almost synonyms.

---

Real freaking mature. Also, completely free of bias. Can you make any point without lumping me in with a political party and then making rash generalisations?

quote:

---

War is humane? The death penalty is humane? The draft (which is, essentially, slavery) is humane? I'm not saying that you agree with these things,

---

Hehe, I do agree with those thigns. I'll go with them point by point.

War is a reality. Sometimes it is neccecary and justified. Same may be true with abortion. War as we have it is not an inhumane slaughter. We do no kill indescriminatly. Humans try to kill eachother, and we've got to kill if we're going to survive. Thing is, we make the decision for ourselves to kill and go to war. In any case, comparing the humanity in war to the humanity in abortion is comparing apples to oranges.
War is a much more complex and very different issue.
My point: A society that holds high the sanctity of all human life is less likely to go to war.

The death penalty: Is humane in my opinion. Criminals of the highest order can pay with their life. It's simple. An unborn child knows no crime.

The Draft: The draft is, like war, a reality. Our country requires few things of us. One of them is the possibility of being drafted if the need arises. If your going to live here and reap the benefits, then you've got to be prepared to defend it. You call is slavery. Terrible analogy for these reasons: 1.) Soilders are paid and given benefits if they are drafted. 2.) You can be a conciencious objector and go into a non-military service. 3.) A mandatory draft is just like mandatory taxes. You cannot choose to not pay taxes. It is the duty of a citizen to pay taxes. It is also your duty to defend.

Again, if you want to dicuss the draft/war/death penalty, I'll be more than happy, but it's off topic here.

quote:

---

I'm just pointing out that their are other things that are inhumane that, if you really cared about "protecting the sense of humanity," you should be arguing against.

---

There is a difference between these things and abortion. The reasons behind the vast majority of abortions are not urgent or important enough to warrant the taking of life. If we implemented the death penalty for the same reasons we have abortions, it would be rediculous.
Think about that, you are sentenced to death because your parents can't afford to feed you. Can you really say that is right?

quote:

---

I'm not agreeing with you that a fetus is almost a person, but what you're saying does seem reasonable enough: that abortion should be legal for the first two trimesters. I will always support abortion, period, but I think what you are suggesting is the most reasonable compromise.

---

Good we're starting to see some comprimise. However, still saying that you always support abortion, period, is a bit disturbing. Do you support late term abortions, or partial birth abortion?

quote:

---

Does not thinking that abortion is an inherent right make me a nutcase?

---

Not really a nutcase, more like a Republican *******. And, I guess, when you get down to it, those are almost synonyms.

quote:

---

It's not about protecting myself, it's about protecting the sense of humanity in out culture.

---

War is humane? The death penalty is humane? The draft (which is, essentially, slavery) is humane? I'm not saying that you agree with these things, necessarily, I'm just pointing out that their are other things that are inhumane that, if you really cared about "protecting the sense of humanity," you should be arguing against.

quote:

---

All that differentiates it from an infant is a few centimeters of flesh and some natal fluid. HOw can you justify killing that?

---

I'm not agreeing with you that a fetus is almost a person, but what you're saying does seem reasonable enough: that abortion should be legal for the first two trimesters. I will always support abortion, period, but I think what you are suggesting is the most reasonable compromise.

quote:

---

Ok, someone might have already said this, but its better to let the kid die of natural causes (even if its a couple days later) than 'force' its death. There are so many other options rather than KILLING a poor, innocent fetus.

---

Most of the time, when a baby is going to die within a few days of being born, the death will not be painless. If I know my child is going to die a painful death, I would want to get an abortion for three reasons. 1. I would want my child to suffer the least amount, 2. If I went through with the pregnancy, and had the child, only for it to die within a few days, I would be way more attached to the child than if I had had it aborted, and I would be much more heartbroken about the death, and 3. I don't want to go through labor if I know for sure my child is going to die. And, in response to you saying that there are "so many other options", I, myself, only know of two: keeping the baby and adoption.