This reminds me of austrlaian and turkish troops trading food inbertween killing each other. I wouldn't have been so.....nasty? if it didn't have personal edge sighs*

Sigh...

I was hoping to stay outta this one, but I've been "dragged" back in. I know, I can ignore it, but I feel compelled to respond on the two points where I was "attacked".

However, this is my last post on this issue. I usually avoid the whole topic of abortion in RL because, as I have said, everyone has their beliefs and mine is that either side is unwinnable.

I find it funny, however, that although I said something along the lines of "I'm slightly pro-choice" (IOW, that's probably how I'd vote if it came to that), someone is trying to make me see that pro-life is just dead wrong and that these pople make no sense.... and I just can't feel that way.

If I saw proof that a 10 cell blathocyst had a "soul" if you will, or a "consciousness" or whatever you wanted to call it, I'd agree that, in most cases, abortion should be illegal.

Unfortunately, I haven't seen such proof. Nor have I seen contractiditory proof. And "common sense" is not a valid argument since both sides (equally reasonably) clain that they are sure they have that...

As an aside, I have not even seen proof that an infant has consciousness. There have been theories that consciousness is developed post-natally, but I think we'd all agree that a two-month old infant should not be killed -- that that would be murder. So, I am not even sure if that would truly settle this, apparently, eternal debate.

Anyhow, on to my last reply on this thread:

Yup. It is. And that was my whole point. That's what we do when we make theft and murder illegal. IOW, it is a common practice condoned by all to "force" some "morals" on others.

And, as I have said (in almost every argument I have had) saying that I could be put in some position where I might feel differently does not make my opinion wrong -- very few people's dedication to their principles are that strong. But even though I am willing to concede that I might feel differently point, I never said that, if I were pro-life, I might not believe in exceptions. And, I maintain that I don't know what I would think. Hypotheticals are often bad ways to prove anything, becuase no one truly knows what they would do in any given situation.

At any rate, I think this would be a case where I would have a strong difference between feelings and thoughts - a situation, which many here can attest, that I have had several times before. I believe that while I would probably feel like I had every right to do what I wanted (and again, I am NOT saying that I wouldn't have that right), but at the same time, I believe I would think, as much as I might hate it, that the other person is still, based on their opinions, fighting for what they believe is right.

I have often respected/understood the opinions of others even though they interfere with my rights and choices and can annoy me to no end.

I have a friend who is VERY pro gun-control and, although we disagree on that point vehamantly, after many conversations, I now understand his position. And, if I had his beliefs, I'd agree with him. That's why he and I seldom discuss the topic any longer -- the disagreement comes down to basic beliefs. Any further conversation will be pointless and just get both of us angry. So, by mutual decision, we avoid the topic.

And it's why I will not discuss this topic any longer other than to re-state my original point: This argument cannot be won either way until we have some clear evidence at what point a "human" life begins. And, I will add, even then, we would have differing opinions as to possible exceptions and the extent of enforcement.

I have never seen this debate change even a single person's mind. So, I will no longer ever waste my time trying to stop it. Anyone who wishes to continue it, Enjoy!

See you on other threads! :)

Without divulging my own opinion, there is one element I'd like to note...

The zygote, and the fetus that develops from it, are most certainly human. In the abortion debate both sides are trying to win the argument semantically, and I wish this would stop. The cells of the zygote have the right number of chromosomes and human DNA, and that makes it human.

Of course, so are a lot of cells - including many that we remove surgically for any number of reasons.

The debate is not whether it's human, but whether it's a person. Human cells don't have rights; people have rights.

That is all, we now return to your regularly-scheduled debate.

The smoking gun website has some documents of Vanity Plates that are not allowed.

Vanity Plantes

Vanity Plates 2

lisa wrote <i>"As an aside, I have not even seen proof that an infant has consciousness."</i>

If consciousness is the sticking point, it's neocortical brain activity that counts - something that happens around the sixth month.

RU486? Damn rights I am.

Birth control methods fail. Stupidity and rape happen. Pro-choice? You bet. Whether you agree or not, there has been and will always be abortion. There will always be desperate women of all ages not able or willing to be a parent for the first time or the fifth. Keep it open and safe.

A newly-formed zygote is not a person, it's a single human cell. When it starts to divide, it's still not a person. It's a collection of human cells that are all exactly alike. After a few days a placenta forms that houses a collection of cells that don't even contain any organs. The brain doesn't start to "differentiate" and form until after about 27-29 days. So, this "collection of cells" doesn't even start to "think" for a whole month. That's plenty of time to abort before it can experience pain.

Now, i'm sure there are people who would disagree with my definition of a "person". But if I went by their definition, I would not be a person at all, but merely a huge collection of billions and billions of persons. Yes, every time I masturbate I am commiting mass murder! All those wasted lives! I feel so guilty.. all that useless suffering for my decadent pleasure. Millions of potential lives withering away and thinking to themselves, "why me?".


Anyway, my point is that the classification of what a "person" is is completely arbitrary.

Also, i'm not really disagreeing with anything you said. If I understand you correctly, then I agree with most of what you said. It's just that you made your points in a way that made me think of things to say. :]


-+- Sidenote -+-

Oh, also, this thread is really long. Can those of you who quote people please name the person you're quoting? I don't even remember who said what anymore when I read people quoting things. Yes, I admit it, i'm a lazy bastard who can't be bothered to scroll up. {g}

Lisa: You have a point, i'm debtating for the point of debating, not much more. I think we've got this down to a metaphysics question of waht is a person/human and from then on, argueing is pointless because there can be no evidence.