Mississippi challenges Roe VS Wade, loves God

[BigBallinStalin]

swimmer is talking about killing the 20 year old, which, in his mind, is congruent to aborting a fetus that is known to have the same disability. What if, after 20 years, the parents, fully knowing that the 20 year old will need his parents' assitance his entire life, decided to kill him (assume there's no legal implications)? How is that different than aborting a fetus?

That's nice of him, but it isn't natty's argument. I guess they'll have to give each other a hand job.

Also, the main difference in thinking is that those who argue for abortions define a fetus as a "potential child" while those who are against abortions think the child itself is in existence right at conception. At what point does a "potential child" become a "child"?

Not sure. It varies on the mother. As long as the abortion is a justified killing, then I'm not really concerned.

[BigBallinStalin]

Retarded is not a vulgar word. I am going to college to probably study for eduction of mentally "HANDICAPPED" children. Why? partially to help this problem, be willing to take care of someone's kid for the day. I have a real passion for it, and currently teach lessons to handicapped kids on how to swim, so watch what you say.

Just thought I would comment, you'd rather fight though. So good'day sir, and don't accuse people of what you don't know.

Get the f*ck off your high horse... you didn't just "comment", you formulated a purposefully antagonizing rhetoric just to create conflict, so don't come crying to me now that I'm not playing nice.

Retarded is an offensive term in this context, and you should probably know it if you ever plan on interacting with disabled people. Just as a heads-up.

Either way, address the point at hand or shut up.

I directly supervise developmentally disabled adults in vocational situations... that is, the company I work for contracts with local businesses and has disabled adults participate in whatever job they need, all of whom have varying degrees of mental retardation, with the ultimate goal of teaching these indivuals job skills. I work with these individuals every day. The only people who find the term "retarded" offensive are the parents or over-sensitive people. Some of them (disabled) use the term themselves to describe something. It's a valid medical term.

-TG

EVERYONE ABOVE THIS LINE IS RETARDED:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

[isaiah40]

Also, the main difference in thinking is that those who argue for abortions define a fetus as a "potential child" while those who are against abortions think the child itself is in existence right at conception. At what point does a "potential child" become a "child"?

At birth.
However, at a point significantly prior to that, the potential is great enough that the fetus does deserve some protection, ergo restrictions on later term abortions.

Within the first trimester, some of the absolute best estimates only give the child a 70% chance of surving birth.

I'm confused player. First you say a child becomes a child at birth, then you say it is a child in the first trimester. Which is it? It seems as you don't really know yourself.

[Symmetry]

Also, the main difference in thinking is that those who argue for abortions define a fetus as a "potential child" while those who are against abortions think the child itself is in existence right at conception. At what point does a "potential child" become a "child"?

At birth.
However, at a point significantly prior to that, the potential is great enough that the fetus does deserve some protection, ergo restrictions on later term abortions.

Within the first trimester, some of the absolute best estimates only give the child a 70% chance of surving birth.

I'm confused player. First you say a child becomes a child at birth, then you say it is a child in the first trimester. Which is it? It seems as you don't really know yourself.

I think you've misread Player on this one, or seem to want to catch a technicality of phrasing. In both cases she is describing birth.

[The Fire Knight]

Speech in May, 1923, in Germany by Hitler:

"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are the image of the Devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the nations."

A conglomeration of many of your arguments in November, 2011, in the United States by Pro-Choice advocates:

"Fetuses and Embryos are undoubtedly alive and human, but not deserving of rights. They cannot be deserving of Constitutional rights in the sense of being babies, who are bigger, not as dependent, and more developed. Fetuses are only the potential for life. Being fetus-life is akin to being a parasite of women."

[Symmetry]

Speech in May, 1923, in Germany by Hitler:

"The Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being an image of God, the Eternal. The Jews are the image of the Devil. Jewry means the racial tuberculosis of the nations."

A conglomeration of many of your arguments in November, 2011, in the United States by Pro-Choice advocates:

"Fetuses and Embryos are undoubtedly alive and human, but not deserving of rights. They cannot be deserving of Constitutional rights in the sense of being babies, who are bigger, not as dependent, and more developed. Fetuses are only the potential for life. Being fetus-life is akin to being a parasite of women."

Well, I'm convinced. Next up, should we put vegetarians on trial for the holocaust?

[Metsfanmax]

And Godwin's law wins again!

[natty dread]

I like to call it "argumentum ad hitlerum"

[MeDeFe]

I like to call it "argumentum ad hitlerum"

Wasn't it "reductio ad hitlerum"?

[Army of GOD]

FETUSES ARE JEWS

[PLAYER57832]

Also, the main difference in thinking is that those who argue for abortions define a fetus as a "potential child" while those who are against abortions think the child itself is in existence right at conception. At what point does a "potential child" become a "child"?

At birth.
However, at a point significantly prior to that, the potential is great enough that the fetus does deserve some protection, ergo restrictions on later term abortions.

Within the first trimester, some of the absolute best estimates only give the child a 70% chance of surving birth.

I'm confused player. First you say a child becomes a child at birth, then you say it is a child in the first trimester. Which is it? It seems as you don't really know yourself.

No, I said that the potential is great enough that it deserves protection. If it survives birth, it is a child. It was a grammatically and sintaxically correct sentance.

However, you are picking gnats without any real point. I have made clear that I don't think its a matter of "born-living, not born = no rights" , which is what you have tried to imply.

[natty dread]

A good article

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/06/27 ... is-murder/

[Night Strike]

Logically embryos have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human beings. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where humans must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.

Logically all human cells have all the genetic information in them to form every trait of the human being. Logically when something turns from doing nothing to growing rapidly it is alive. Logically this is the point where cancer must get rights, otherwise all of our rights are in danger do to arbitrary limitations.

Except that YOU get to choose how your own cells are treated. You do NOT get to choose what happens to the cells of another being. Cancer cells are mutations on human cells, not a different human.

parents do get to decide things regarding their children. Since parents are the ones who are both emotionally, physically and financially responsible for their children, what right do you have to tell a parent that their child is better off alive than dead, without even knowing the details... OR even to tell a mother she cannot have a dead child surgically removed or choose to save her life and the ability to have future children instead of pursuing a flighty dream, which IS what a young fetus represents.. a dream of a healthy child, not a living, healthy child.

Just shows that you STILL don't know what you're talking about. No parent has the right to kill their child. Ever. Yet it's perfectly acceptable to kill off an unborn child?? It's ludicrous!

By the way, since you have AGAIN chosen to distort the debate, I guess I will have to again fix it. No one is at all stating that you can't remove a fetus from that body that has already died of natural causes. It's only people like you who want to muddle this debate to try to include natural miscarriages. Also, having to abort a fetus is still allowable because it is a form of self-defense. Aborting a fetus simply because the woman decides a child is an inconvenience is NOT a form of self-defense, which is why it should be outlawed.

[Army of GOD]

Also, the main difference in thinking is that those who argue for abortions define a fetus as a "potential child" while those who are against abortions think the child itself is in existence right at conception. At what point does a "potential child" become a "child"?

At birth.
However, at a point significantly prior to that, the potential is great enough that the fetus does deserve some protection, ergo restrictions on later term abortions.

Within the first trimester, some of the absolute best estimates only give the child a 70% chance of surving birth. NOT "surviving healthy and a long-lived life", but "surviving", including children who die almost immediately. More objective estimates put the realistic failure rate at over 50%, taking the many unreported miscarriages into account. Note, again that is JUST the death rate.

When you add in the fact that any pregnancy is risky to both the mother and the child in various ways, even today with our advanced medical science, then yes, there is very good reason to talk of a potential child as opposed to a born child.

BUT.. here is the other part. While I would in no way, shape or form advocate termination of developmentally disabled individuals, we, as a society are pretty hypocritical when it comes to end of life issues in all formats, not just abortion. I can remember when hospice care was not paid, was very limited. Even today, doctors are often prohibited from really sitting down with patients and talking honestly about their options. I mean, sure every doctor wants to cure. However, when you are facing someone with stage 4 cancer or an elderly patient with multiple issues... at some point suggesting the most aggressive treatment because it might possibly offer a cure just does not make sense. OR, at the least, it deserves to be put honestly to the person and family to think about.

For all fundamentalist/evangelical Christians talk about heaven and the glory of God after death, they also bend over backwards in what seems only like fear of death. Why is it that unfaithful people seem more willing and able to talk honestly about these issues?

So do you think late term abortions should be outlawed?

[Lootifer]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

Call it what you like; abortion is good for society.

[Night Strike]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

Call it what you like; abortion is good for society.

Actually, the legalization of abortion has helped to destroy the sanctity of life in society. No society can survive when it willfully kills off its unborn. Even more so when it applauds those who do.

[Metsfanmax]

Actually, the legalization of abortion has helped to destroy the sanctity of life in society. No society can survive when it willfully kills off its unborn. Even more so when it applauds those who do.

There never was any sanctity of life in our society.

[Night Strike]

Metsfan, it's telling how you equate the killing of a murderer to the killing of an innocent, unborn child.

[Army of GOD]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

That's an awful argument though. If abortion is legal, then they should be legal until the child is out of the mother, as PLAYER gave me a satisfying definition of a child (it's really the only point at which the "being" [watching my syntax] is discretely a child or just a potential child). I understand the probability of survival of a child increases probably exponentially at the end of the pregnancy, but choosing an arbitrary percentage and claiming that abortions past this point are immoral seems like a pretty ambiguous argument.

[Metsfanmax]

Metsfan, it's telling how you equate the killing of a murderer to the killing of an innocent, unborn child.

On the contrary, I do not equate them. I find it horrifying that we kill murderers, but I am OK with abortion.

[Army of GOD]

I am against both the death penalty and abortions.


I AM THE ONLY PURE ONE HERE

[Metsfanmax]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

That's an awful argument though. If abortion is legal, then they should be legal until the child is out of the mother, as PLAYER gave me a satisfying definition of a child (it's really the only point at which the "being" [watching my syntax] is discretely a child or just a potential child). I understand the probability of survival of a child increases probably exponentially at the end of the pregnancy, but choosing an arbitrary percentage and claiming that abortions past this point are immoral seems like a pretty ambiguous argument.

The scientific argument is another method of attack if the ethical, philosophical one does not. Up until after the first trimester, the embryo really doesn't share any of the physical traits that distinguish a being as human. Yes it has the genetic material, but so do sperm that get wasted every night (either during protected sex, or masturbation).

[Army of GOD]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

That's an awful argument though. If abortion is legal, then they should be legal until the child is out of the mother, as PLAYER gave me a satisfying definition of a child (it's really the only point at which the "being" [watching my syntax] is discretely a child or just a potential child). I understand the probability of survival of a child increases probably exponentially at the end of the pregnancy, but choosing an arbitrary percentage and claiming that abortions past this point are immoral seems like a pretty ambiguous argument.

The scientific argument is another method of attack if the ethical, philosophical one does not. Up until after the first trimester, the embryo really doesn't share any of the physical traits that distinguish a being as human. Yes it has the genetic material, but so do sperm that get wasted every night (either during protected sex, or masturbation).

But contraception is the definitive point at which the sperm and egg's DNAs combine, which is greatly different than the sperm cell by itself.

[Metsfanmax]

I'm pretty sure most pro-abortion people (such as myself) are against late term abortions; if only because you've already had 5-6 months to decide and should have well and truly made up your mind by then.

That's an awful argument though. If abortion is legal, then they should be legal until the child is out of the mother, as PLAYER gave me a satisfying definition of a child (it's really the only point at which the "being" [watching my syntax] is discretely a child or just a potential child). I understand the probability of survival of a child increases probably exponentially at the end of the pregnancy, but choosing an arbitrary percentage and claiming that abortions past this point are immoral seems like a pretty ambiguous argument.

The scientific argument is another method of attack if the ethical, philosophical one does not. Up until after the first trimester, the embryo really doesn't share any of the physical traits that distinguish a being as human. Yes it has the genetic material, but so do sperm that get wasted every night (either during protected sex, or masturbation).

But contraception is the definitive point at which the sperm and egg's DNAs combine, which is greatly different than the sperm cell by itself.

Sure, but nothing magical happens to the sperm or the egg at the time of conception. The resulting zygote has all of the genetic information of the sperm and egg and nothing more, and the reason it has any one particular sperm's DNA and not any others is (pretty much) a game of random chance played in the uterus.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

HEY GUYS DID YOU READ ABOUT THE 10 YEAR OLD MEXICAN GIRL WHO GAVE BIRTH? WHAT THEN?

Just thought I'd throw some fuel on the fire...

http://www.newsoxy.com/odd/10-year-old- ... 36982.html

-TG