Will the US population erupt in protests? Riots? Civil war?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v38/stagemonster/bathroom-abortion.jpg

I shall dance in zee streets.

Here is a revolutionary idea. Congress can do what they are paid to do and submit legislation legalizing abortion and then overturn the veto.

people should pay extra taxes for having kids... not get a tax break IMO. hopefully they can incorperate something like that if they ban abortions.

I envision more tragedies like what happened in Colorado last week. When the moral minority start actually taking control of the state, there'll be many deaths.

What will happen if 'Roe vs. Wade' is overturned?

Females would only ****:

When they have a condom or diaphram.

They would follow their cycle.

ON BC pills.

Norplant.

All of the above.

I, as the gummint, would provide every 13 year old (or at puberty) an Advanced Norplant system to be taken out after she reaches 18 or she could opt to keep it in forever how long she likes. Of course, this is America, and you don't have to do it. But the gummint also doesn't, in this case, have to take care of your kid. We've already had the best method on the table and you didn't play.

So...Roe vs Wade is moot.


--------------------------------
What do I do at the Big Top with a net under a highwire? I TRANSVERSE THE HIGHWIRE! :cool:

What do I do without a net under the highwire? I don't go near the damn thing! :eek:

Same thing.

Females would only ****:

When they have a condom or diaphram.

They would follow their cycle.

ON BC pills.

Norplant.

Don't women still get pregnant using these practices/products?

Don't women still get pregnant using these practices/products?

How many? How many that don't? Did they have a 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line of defense against the dastardly Spermies!


Is one murder less serious than 30,000?

Is one murder less serious than 30,000?

Who's murdering anyone here? A zygote is not a human, therefore cannot be murdered.

Or were you referring to the tens of thousands of women who will die at the hands of "doctors" offering backstreet abortions, if Roe v. Wade were to be abolished?

Who's murdering anyone here? A zygote is not a human, therefore cannot be murdered.

Or were you referring to the tens of thousands of women who will die at the hands of "doctors" offering backstreet abortions, if Roe v. Wade were to be abolished?

After about 5 days the baby has a brain, after 3 months the baby has a working brain, a beating heart, its own body temperature, and it begins to suck its thumb.

You know what five days is? Oh shit, I'm getting sick...feel nauseated.

Are you kidding? The over medicated, plasma screen zombified, gotta keep up with the JOne's society protest?

You'll probably just hear a loud grumble and everything will fall back on the states. Most will keep it legal and those that don't will deal with infanticide and bordertown abortion clinics. :hmm:

sadly, people will take it in their own hands :nonono:

didnt roe change her views and regretted what she did?


heres a great discussion regarding the recent gonzalez v. carhart decision which throw roe v. wade into question. just skip to the chapters if you dont want to watch the whole thing!


http://fora.tv/2007/10/23/Abortion_Controversies (http://fora.tv/2007/10/23/Abortion_Controversies)

People would actually start taking responsibility for their actions?

Wishful thinking, I suppose...

What will happen if 'Roe vs. Wade' is overturned?

The two extremes, right and left, will have to find some meaningful issues to address.

After about 5 days the baby has a brain

I've certainly never heard that one. Hell, the journey along the Fallopian tube takes about four days. By the time the womb cavity is reached (five to six days), the cell cluster becomes hollow and fluid-filled, and is referred to as a blastocyst.

Which part here is the hollow and fluid-filled "brain" of a five-day old blastocyst? Could you point it out please?

http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/day%205%20blastocyst.jpg

People would actually start taking responsibility for their actions?

Wishful thinking, I suppose...

It could be argued that criminalizing abortions would be one less avenue women have of taking responsibility for their actions.

In 2006 The Atlantic Mothly published an outstanding essay asking this very question.

It came to the conclusion that overturning Roe V. Wade would be the best thing that ever happend to liberalism and the worst thing that ever happend to conservatism.

According to the essay,if Roe V. Wade was overturned then one-third of the country would outlaw abortion [the same third where it's virtually impossible to get an abortion now],another third of the country would outlaw only third trimester abortions [which are rare] ,another third of the country would keep the abortion laws the way they are now and the Republicans would never again be a majority party for several decades.


In other words , not much would change with Roe v. wade being overturned except that the Republicans [which are already a sinking ship] would be out of power for several generations.

Link: http://blog.democrats.com/node/2717

In 2006 The Atlantic Mothly published an outstanding essay asking this very question.

It came to the conclusion that overturning Roe V. Wade would be the best thing that ever happend to liberalism and the worst thing that ever happend to conservatism.

According to the essay,if Roe V. Wade was overturned then one-third of the country would outlaw abortion [the same third where it's virtually impossible to get an abortion now],another third of the country would outlaw only third trimester abortions [which are rare] ,another third of the country would keep the abortion laws the way they are now and the Republicans would never again be a majority party for several decades.

That's why I always thought that anti-choice activists are not only wrong, but are completely out of touch with reality, and the fact that even if they DO end up overturning Roe, it still won't end abortion and the difference would be VERY limited even if some states DO ban abortion.

The ONLY people who would be hurt by that would be completely poor women who live in the jesusland states and are so poor that they can't even get a ride to another state and get abortion there. Even then, most people personally know doctors that wouldn't mind doing an illegal favor for them anyways:D:. If preventing some very poor women in a a few states who have no doctor friends, from having abortions would be their only goal, I'd understand:p.

In other words , not much would change with Roe v. wade being overturned except that the Republicans [which are already a sinking ship] would be out of power for several generations.


I hope you're right.

That's why I always thought that anti-choice activists are not only wrong, but are completely out of touch with reality, and the fact that even if they DO end up overturning Roe, it still won't end abortion and the difference would be VERY limited even if some states DO ban abortion.

The ONLY people who would be hurt by that would be completely poor women who live in the jesusland states and are so poor that they can't even get a ride to another state and get abortion there. Even then, most people personally know doctors that wouldn't mind doing an illegal favor for them anyways:D:. If preventing some very poor women in a a few states who have no doctor friends, from having abortions would be their only goal, I'd understand:p.



The women is Jesusland have a virtually impossible time getting an abortion now anyway,so overturning Roe V. Wade will change very little in those states.

And very little will change in the other states as well.

The women is Jesusland have a virtually impossible time getting an abortion now anyway,so overturning Roe V. Wade will change very little in those states.


Why?:confused: The federal law still supports the right for an abortion during the first 3 months. In Virginia, it is very easy to get an abortion.

It will definately be bad for VERY poor women and some teenage girls (who have parents that are religious lunatics), make no mistake about it.

However, anybody else, besides the women in Jesusland who can't get a ride outside, will not be affected by that.

And very little will change in the other states as well.

That's true, because if a state allows abortion, there will be NO WAY that they will be able to do anything about it on the federal level:p.

What is the abortion policy in Yahwehland? Again Congress can easily pass legislation to make abortion legal nationwide. I agree with Ganja and TT that poor women should be sterilized.

What is the abortion policy in Yahwehland? Again Congress can easily pass legislation to make abortion legal nationwide. I agree with Ganja and TT that poor women should be sterilized.

Why don't we start with you, Snouter? Seeing as you have no balls to lose.

Why don't we start with you, Snouter? Seeing as you have no balls to lose.

HAHAHAHA!!!!:p

What is the abortion policy in Yahwehland?

In Israel, abortion does have limits TECHNICALLY, but even according to the law, if the woman just tells the doctor it's not her husband's baby, she's approved for abortion with national heath insurance covering it up. Usually it won't even get as far.

Not a PERFECT abortion policy in my opinion, but better than being completely illegal.

agree with Ganja and TT that poor women should be sterilized.

No, they shouldn't be, but they SHOULD decide when and when not to have kids:p.

Why?:confused: The federal law still supports the right for an abortion during the first 3 months. In Virginia, it is very easy to get an abortion.


Virgina is a more moderate state [as proven by the last election].I'm refering to states like Mississippi and Alabama where every legal limt on abortion that can be placed has been placed,in addition some RTL people have abused people who work in abortion clinics in those states [while the law looks the other way] so much that it isn't worth their while to work there ,so it's virutally impossible to get an an abortion ehre.

In other words abortion is legal in those states but isn't performed


It will definately be bad for VERY poor women and some teenage girls (who have parents that are religious lunatics), make no mistake about it.


Sadly it already is.












No, they shouldn't be, but they SHOULD decide when and when not to have kids:p.



Agreed.

The answer is simple: The power for the states to make their own decisions about abortion will be restored so you blue staters can still let your whores knock themselves up and have their abortions while we, the moral staters, do the opposite.

Uhhh... bortion will become illegal in some states... and won't be in others?

What do I win, Alex?

You win nothing, because blue staters don't believe in states rights anymore than they did in 1861. They like the tryanny of the federal government, it's the best thing since their poster boy stuck a nasty cigar in an interns holiest of holies.

Virgina is a more moderate state [as proven by the last election].I'm refering to states like Mississippi and Alabama where every legal limt on abortion that can be placed has been placed,

Well, maybe for teenagers, but I really don't see how they can actually force a woman who is over 18 not to have one if she really wants to. They do have the "24 hours waiting time" if you call that a limit, but the point is that most women in those states can still get abortions there if that's what they really want. Once Roe is out, it will affect those women who cannot get a ride to another state, which means only the very poor ones.

some RTL people have abused people who work in abortion clinics in those states [while the law looks the other way] so much that it isn't worth their while to work there ,so it's virutally impossible to get an an abortion ehre.

Yeah, good point, but still, there are abortion clinics, and if a woman who lives in that state really wants to get one, she will still be able to, no matter what some unemployed rednecks who stand outside of the clinics may scream. At least now they have the federal law protecting them.

Maybe sometimes it can be hard, but "virtually impossible" is not exactly the right term either. Or at least I hope:rolleyes:.


In other words abortion is legal in those states but isn't performed

Of course it is. It ALWAYS has been, even before 1973, in cases when the mother's life was in danger, or even sometimes because of rape. So if such doctors can obviously do it in those cases, they can do it one way or another, and I'm sure there's at least a couple of those clinics in every one of those states.

The answer is simple: The power for the states to make their own decisions about abortion will be restored so you blue staters can still let your whores knock themselves up and have their abortions while we, the moral staters, do the opposite.

Yeah, but the problem is that nearly all of your "whores" can still get a ride to a blue state and have abortion without a problem, just like our "whores":p.

You win nothing, because blue staters don't believe in states rights anymore than they did in 1861. They like the tryanny of the federal government, it's the best thing since their poster boy stuck a nasty cigar in an interns holiest of holies.

Again, you fail to see that even "states rights" won't end abortion or even limit abortion THAT MUCH, not even for most women in the red states.

I don't care if abortion doesn't end in the red states, because that is their biz not mine.

Again, you fail to see that even "states rights" won't end abortion or even limit abortion THAT MUCH, not even for most women in the red states.

That being the case, why do pro-abortionists fight so hard to keep Roe?

Because if it's legal, it can be done in a hospital, where the likelihood of something going horribly wrong is far lower than if it was done in an alleyway or a bathroom.

And we're not "pro-abortionists," we're pro-choice. Many of us agree that it's a horrible, atrocious thing to do, but we're not willing to say that it should never be done.

I don't care if abortion doesn't end in the red states, because that is their biz not mine.

Oh, so I guess you're just moderate on that subject:).

That being the case, why do pro-abortionists fight so hard to keep Roe?

1. Many of them don't have the political knowledge it takes to understand that even without Roe, abortion will still be availible pretty much everywhere it is availible right now.

2. Many liberals (and people who like fairness in general) feel that if most women in the country can get an abortion, then so should ALL, including very poor women in red states who don't have money for a ride to another state, or teenage girls who can't find a ride. Although, it's still a small % of women who need abortion, I still believe that overturning Roe would not be fair to them, and so do many other people.

3. Just because it won't hurt most American women who need abortions, doesn't mean that we'd let the small minority to be f#cked over, just because some right-wing barbaric lunatics think that ending Roe will somehow end abortion in America:p.

ecause if it's legal, it can be done in a hospital, where the likelihood of something going horribly wrong is far lower than if it was done in an alleyway or a bathroom.

:nice:

And we're not "pro-abortionists," we're pro-choice. Many of us agree that it's a horrible, atrocious thing to do, but we're not willing to say that it should never be done.

Yeah, well that's the kind of concept that social conservatives just don't get. Just because I don't want to make something illegal doesn't mean that I'm personally in love with it either:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Abortion is the least of our problems, but it becomes our biggest problem when it entices the christian conservative base to elect antichrist wannabes like GeorGe BUsh to the white house.

Well, maybe for teenagers, but I really don't see how they can actually force a woman who is over 18 not to have one if she really wants to. They do have the "24 hours waiting time" if you call that a limit, but the point is that most women in those states can still get abortions there if that's what they really want. Once Roe is out, it will affect those women who cannot get a ride to another state, which means only the very poor ones.



Yeah, good point, but still, there are abortion clinics, and if a woman who lives in that state really wants to get one, she will still be able to, no matter what some unemployed rednecks who stand outside of the clinics may scream. At least now they have the federal law protecting them.

Maybe sometimes it can be hard, but "virtually impossible" is not exactly the right term either. Or at least I hope:rolleyes:.




Of course it is. It ALWAYS has been, even before 1973, in cases when the mother's life was in danger, or even sometimes because of rape. So if such doctors can obviously do it in those cases, they can do it one way or another, and I'm sure there's at least a couple of those clinics in every one of those states.


No ,there are some of "those states" where abortions are not performed [don't ask me which ones] because doctors [and staff] are scared to do so there.

Women in those states now go to moderate or liberal states to get abortions,and that will still happen if Roe V. Wade is overturned.

Why do think Clarence Thomas and his ilk have never voted to totally overturn Roe?

It's becasue they know nothing will turn the Republican Party to toast quicker than that.

Because if it's legal, it can be done in a hospital, where the likelihood of something going horribly wrong is far lower than if it was done in an alleyway or a bathroom.

And we're not "pro-abortionists," we're pro-choice. Many of us agree that it's a horrible, atrocious thing to do, but we're not willing to say that it should never be done.

100% agreement.

No ,there are some of "those states" where abortions are not performed [don't ask me which ones] because doctors [and staff] are scared to do so there.

Women in those states now go to moderate or liberal states to get abortions,and that will still happen if Roe V. Wade is overturned.

I really hope you're wrong about it. I sure didn't know all of that. But then again, the only "jesusland" states I've been to are the ones in between VA and Florida, so I guess I wouldn't know it all.

I didn't know that there are still states where abortion is not performed ANYWHERE:rolleyes:. Again, I sincerely hope you're wrong about it, but if you're right, I guess it does mean that Roe. is kind of irrelevant.

Why do think Clarence Thomas and his ilk have never voted to totally overturn Roe?

It's becasue they know nothing will turn the Republican Party to toast quicker than that.

Interesting point.

Roe -v- Wade overturned?

American HMO will be investing in huge abortion clinics in Canada and Mexico and reaping huge profits - isn't that what a Free Market is supposed to do.

And the poor folks go back to the illegal abortionists they always used.

And the smug, self-righteous "pro-lifers" will think they have "saved" lives instead of causing more death, pain and misery.

That being the case, why do pro-abortionists fight so hard to keep Roe?

Because pro-choice people do not want bigger, more powerful and expensive government created to make medical and spiritual decisions for us. Why are people who are supposed to be opposed to strong and expensive and big government so staunchly in support of handing over more of our beliefs and personal decisions over to more bureaucracy?

Because pro-choice people do not want bigger, more powerful and expensive government created to make medical and spiritual decisions for us. Why are people who are supposed to be opposed to strong and expensive and big government so staunchly in support of handing over more of our beliefs and personal decisions over to more bureaucracy?

Because they don't see it as a private issue. They see it as a murder issue, and you can't relegate murder to being a private issue. If the law allows a woman to have her fully formed baby shredded, punctured, burned or poisoned for any or no reason at all, that's a problem. If the law allows a 13 year old girl to be transported to an abortion clinic and to have a surgical procedure performed on her without her parents' knowledge or consent, yet requires those same parents to deal with any and all consequences of said surgical procedure, that's a problem. The pro-abortion side would get a lot more people on their side if they were to concede that there should be restrictions on aborting nearly full-term babies and performing surgery on underage girls without their parents' knowledge or consent. As long as what's getting killed is obviously a baby, abortion will not be seen as a private issue.

Because they don't see it as a private issue. They see it as a murder issue, and you can't relegate murder to being a private issue. If the law allows a woman to have her fully formed baby shredded, punctured, burned or poisoned for any or no reason at all, that's a problem. If the law allows a 13 year old girl to be transported to an abortion clinic and to have a surgical procedure performed on her without her parents' knowledge or consent, yet requires those same parents to deal with any and all consequences of said surgical procedure, that's a problem. The pro-abortion side would get a lot more people on their side if they were to concede that there should be restrictions on aborting nearly full-term babies and performing surgery on underage girls without their parents' knowledge or consent. As long as what's getting killed is obviously a baby, abortion will not be seen as a private issue.

To your first point, that is a religious issue. Until someone comes up with a scientific, provable measure for what makes a clump of cells a child versus a clump of cells, I will always err on the side of respecting the individual's personal religious beliefs. If a person doesn't want their organs taken when they are brain-dead because they feel they are still alive, that's a religious choice I will live with even if it costs the life of another. These are the same issue because they are dealing with the part of us that is not scientifically understood, the part that is spiritual, and therefore the State should have no laws regarding it.
To the second issue, this is the Christians' own chicken come home to roost. They have made sexuality an unspeakable aspect of life, and therefore have created a need for privacy around it. If the attitude of ostracizing sexually active individuals was expelled, this would become a medical matter solely and you could require parents to be notified as they would be for any medical procedure that involved surgery.

Good to see you back, grim...

To your first point, that is a religious issue. Until someone comes up with a scientific, provable measure for what makes a clump of cells a child versus a clump of cells,

Unless you are talking about the morning after pill, what you are saying is a flat out lie. Most abortions take place at between 7-12 weeks (a woman usually doesn't even know she's pregnant until she has missed a couple periods, so usually the earliest a clinic abortion is done is 6 weeks) and by then the baby is most definitely NOT a "clump of cells" - we are talking about a baby with a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.


I will always err on the side of respecting the individual's personal religious beliefs.

So in a life/death situation, you would err on the side of death in a case you admit is not clearly decided on. Got it. Hopefully you will never serve on a jury in a capital punishment case.

Unless you are talking about the morning after pill, what you are saying is a flat out lie. Most abortions take place at between 7-12 weeks (a woman usually doesn't even know she's pregnant until she has missed a couple periods, so usually the earliest a clinic abortion is done is 6 weeks) and by then the baby is most definitely NOT a "clump of cells" - we are talking about a baby with a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.


And it still doesn't change the fact that abortion will stay legal in most America, with Roe or without, and there's NOTHING the anti-choice propoganda can do about it:p. You may be able to get Texas to make it illegal, but I still have yet to hear what kind of plans do you guys have for California or New York.

So in a life/death situation, you would err on the side of death in a case you admit is not clearly decided on.

I would err on the side of PERSONAL CHOICE:p.

Hopefully you will never serve on a jury in a capital punishment case.

I do support capital punishment for some people, especially unwanted fetuses:p.

And it still doesn't change the fact that abortion will stay legal in most America, with Roe or without, and there's NOTHING the anti-choice propoganda can do about it:p. You may be able to get Texas to make it illegal, but I still have yet to hear what kind of plans do you guys have for California or New York.

You should then agree that Roe is an unnecessary, unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power and should be repealed, since it wouldn't have any effect on the number of abortions.

You should then agree that Roe is an unnecessary, unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power and should be repealed, since it wouldn't have any effect on the number of abortions.

It protects some poor women and teenagers (who's parents are religious lunatics) in states that historically oppose abortions. This is why I support Roe.

If the religious right cared as much about actual living breathing children as they do potential children, they might have things like health care, safe food, and not be poisoned throughout their lives by corporations..

Good to see you back, grim...

Thank you, nice to be home.

Unless you are talking about the morning after pill, what you are saying is a flat out lie. Most abortions take place at between 7-12 weeks (a woman usually doesn't even know she's pregnant until she has missed a couple periods, so usually the earliest a clinic abortion is done is 6 weeks) and by then the baby is most definitely NOT a "clump of cells" - we are talking about a baby with a beating heart, brain waves, arms, legs, etc.

Now you are flat out lying. The brain forms late in the second trimester, and the actual connection to the brain stem doesn't occur until well into the third. Until the brain stem actually connects with the spinal cord and the formed brain, there is no genuine concept of pain as we know it, there is mere autonomic response. Actual cognitive ability and the laying down of relationship patterns doesn't occur until well after birth. So if we want to talk psychologically or medically it isn't actually a child until after at least 7 months.
That brings us back to the big question. What makes it a child? Is it the ability to reason, the ability to survive outside the womb, the connection of the critical brain formations... what is the defining moment? The truth is, even I pull from my spiritual and therefore religious beliefs to make that judgment. Because of that, I can not reasonably force my religious views on another by denying them the right to make their own determination.


So in a life/death situation, you would err on the side of death in a case you admit is not clearly decided on. Got it. Hopefully you will never serve on a jury in a capital punishment case.

Is your position so weak you have to resort to this kind of sophistry? In a situation where the religious rights of the individual are in conflict with the desires of the State, I tend to err on the side of the individual. The exception is when the actions of an individual impair upon the rights or welfare of another. In this case you would argue that the fetus has rights. I disagree because there is no non-religious reason to believe that it is not a physiological part of the mother until it is born or otherwise removed. Prior to that, it is cells growing inside of a person, with no more rights than cancer. There's a pretty fine line between forcing a woman to bring a pregnancy to term and forcing a woman to get pregnant. I don't want the State to have that kind of power over women. Until there is a non-religious-based line drawn that differentiates person from cells gathering to form an organism, I can't in good conscience deny a woman the right to decide what medical procedures will be carried out on her body.
And of course, the religious right will not let that line be drawn, because they know that scientifically and medically speaking it would likely be between months 6 and 8. And their belief is that it is a child at the point of conception.

Now you are flat out lying. The brain forms late in the second trimester, and the actual connection to the brain stem doesn't occur until well into the third. Until the brain stem actually connects with the spinal cord and the formed brain, there is no genuine concept of pain as we know it, there is mere autonomic response. Actual cognitive ability and the laying down of relationship patterns doesn't occur until well after birth. So if we want to talk psychologically or medically it isn't actually a child until after at least 7 months.
That brings us back to the big question. What makes it a child? Is it the ability to reason, the ability to survive outside the womb, the connection of the critical brain formations... what is the defining moment? The truth is, even I pull from my spiritual and therefore religious beliefs to make that judgment. Because of that, I can not reasonably force my religious views on another by denying them the right to make their own determination.

Straw men. I said brain waves, don't add to my words. And btw, the brain starts forming very early on, MUCH earlier than "late in the second trimester" as you said.

My point was that you used the tired old term "clump of cells" which is flat out false, unless you're talking about the morning after. (even then, it is an actual human life, but that was besides my point)


Is your position so weak you have to resort to this kind of sophistry? In a situation where the religious rights of the individual are in conflict with the desires of the State, I tend to err on the side of the individual. The exception is when the actions of an individual impair upon the rights or welfare of another. In this case you would argue that the fetus has rights. I disagree because there is no non-religious reason to believe that it is not a physiological part of the mother until it is born or otherwise removed. Prior to that, it is cells growing inside of a person, with no more rights than cancer. There's a pretty fine line between forcing a woman to bring a pregnancy to term and forcing a woman to get pregnant. I don't want the State to have that kind of power over women. Until there is a non-religious-based line drawn that differentiates person from cells gathering to form an organism, I can't in good conscience deny a woman the right to decide what medical procedures will be carried out on her body.
And of course, the religious right will not let that line be drawn, because they know that scientifically and medically speaking it would likely be between months 6 and 8. And their belief is that it is a child at the point of conception.

Err on the side of the individual? There are two individuals involved. You can try to make it sound good and use all the euphamisms you want, but the fact is - in a life/death situation where (in your mind) the evidence is not clear, you are erring on the side of death. Period. Just admit it. :shrug:

Straw men. I said brain waves, don't add to my words. And btw, the brain starts forming very early on, MUCH earlier than "late in the second trimester" as you said.

My point was that you used the tired old term "clump of cells" which is flat out false, unless you're talking about the morning after. (even then, it is an actual human life, but that was besides my point)
Arguably, the brain starts forming with the creation of the eggs in the woman's ovaries. Should we imprison women for having their period instead of getting pregnant when they are healthy enough to do so? Your choice of when to call it a person is no less arbitrary.


Err on the side of the individual? There are two individuals involved. You can try to make it sound good and use all the euphamisms you want, but the fact is - in a life/death situation where (in your mind) the evidence is not clear, you are erring on the side of death. Period. Just admit it. :shrug:

Actually, in my mind the evidence is fairly clear. There is brain development but thought patterns and the formation of a functional brain happen very, very late in the pregnancy. Can a person be an individual if they have no self-awareness? Because that part of the brain is still forming during the first year. Why is an egg not a person but a fertilized egg is? What makes a person a person? That is the question we are trying to tackle. It is a religious question as to when we become people. In the eyes of the law, we are people when we are born. That is a rational and reasonable place to draw the line in the absence of good science. If you believe differently, then act as you believe, but do not force your religious views upon others through sharia-styled laws.

I disagree because there is no non-religious reason to believe that it is not a physiological part of the mother until it is born or otherwise removed. Prior to that, it is cells growing inside of a person, with no more rights than cancer.

One thing a developing baby is NOT is a part of the mother's body. Cancer cells carry the mother's DNA and are a part of her body. A developing baby has its own unique DNA and blood type (he/she does not share blood with the mother). Biologically, the developing baby is a unique individual and is NOT part of the mother's body.

There's a pretty fine line between forcing a woman to bring a pregnancy to term and forcing a woman to get pregnant.

There's a big, glaring difference. You have to kill something to stop a pregnancy.

I don't want the State to have that kind of power over women. Until there is a non-religious-based line drawn that differentiates person from cells gathering to form an organism, I can't in good conscience deny a woman the right to decide what medical procedures will be carried out on her body.

Hard-core pro-abortionists don't want the parents of underage girls to have any input into what surgical procedures are carried out on their children. Why is that?

It protects some poor women and teenagers (who's parents are religious lunatics) in states that historically oppose abortions. This is why I support Roe.

Protects them from what? Parents preventing uninvolved outsiders from performing surgery on their underage children, then dumping the emotional and physical results on them to deal with?

What do you think would happen if abortion were banned? Cocaine and marijuana are both banned in America. How's that working out?

I doubt meeting some shady guy on the corner and palming him a 20 would work for abortions.

I doubt meeting some shady guy on the corner and palming him a 20 would work for abortions.

Wanna bet?

I doubt meeting some shady guy on the corner and palming him a 20 would work for abortions.

It has before. Unsafe abortions have been performed many times.

One thing a developing baby is NOT is a part of the mother's body. Cancer cells carry the mother's DNA and are a part of her body. A developing baby has its own unique DNA and blood type (he/she does not share blood with the mother). Biologically, the developing baby is a unique individual and is NOT part of the mother's body.

So, anything in your body that has different DNA has rights?

There's a big, glaring difference. You have to kill something to stop a pregnancy.
So, by that argument it is less evil for the State to force someone to get pregnant... so much for small government.


Hard-core pro-abortionists don't want the parents of underage girls to have any input into what surgical procedures are carried out on their children. Why is that?

Got me. I just know that reproductive medical procedures and exams are private even from parents because of the puritanical society we live in. Fix the cause, stop crying about the symptoms.

I doubt meeting some shady guy on the corner and palming him a 20 would work for abortions.

History proves otherwise.

So, anything in your body that has different DNA has rights?

No, just developing humans.

So, by that argument it is less evil for the State to force someone to get pregnant... so much for small government.

Not quite sure where you're headed with that, but of course it is less evil to force someone to get pregnant than it is to kill babies. It's a moot point anyway, because no one's forcing anyone to get pregnant.

Got me. I just know that reproductive medical procedures and exams are private even from parents because of the puritanical society we live in. Fix the cause, stop crying about the symptoms.

No, uninvolved bystanders can take an underage girl to have surgery performed on her without her parents' knowledge or consent because of misguided ideas about what is being done to her and her baby. The cause of the problem is disrespect for life. The fix is NOT to force the parents out of the decision-making process.

No, just developing humans.
By that argument women should not be allowed to have their periods instead of getting pregnant.

No, uninvolved bystanders can take an underage girl to have surgery performed on her without her parents' knowledge or consent because of misguided ideas about what is being done to her and her baby. The cause of the problem is disrespect for life. The fix is NOT to force the parents out of the decision-making process.

The cause is that we put this stigma on sexuality and ostracize people for it so we have to protect the privacy of the individual. If the stigma were not there, the privacy issue would be less of a problem.

By that argument women should not be allowed to have their periods instead of getting pregnant.

Baloney. Until they're pregnant, there's no human to kill.

The cause is that we put this stigma on sexuality and ostracize people for it so we have to protect the privacy of the individual. If the stigma were not there, the privacy issue would be less of a problem.

Stigma? Ostracize? Are you aware of popular society in America today? We're saturated with sex, and the only people being ostracized are the ones urging restraint.

Baloney. Until they're pregnant, there's no human to kill.
So at what point is it a human and why?


Stigma? Ostracize? Are you aware of popular society in America today? We're saturated with sex, and the only people being ostracized are the ones urging restraint.

Then why all the hoopla about a pregnant Spears or Juno?

So at what point is it a human and why?

I believe them to be human at conception, because at that point they are biologically distinct from their mother, and gender is established. I know that my view is in the minority, and that it is informed by my religious beliefs. I also understand that to many, the more a developing baby LOOKS like a baby, the less likely they are to support killing it. That's why I've always maintained that the pro-abortion side would gain a lot more support if they would bend from their rigid "kill at any time for any reason" stance.

Then why all the hoopla about a pregnant Spears or Juno?

Because they're so young and stupid and their children have little chance at a normal childhood.

I believe them to be human at conception, because at that point they are biologically distinct from their mother, and gender is established. I know that my view is in the minority, and that it is informed by my religious beliefs. I also understand that to many, the more a developing baby LOOKS like a baby, the less likely they are to support killing it. That's why I've always maintained that the pro-abortion side would gain a lot more support if they would bend from their rigid "kill at any time for any reason" stance.
But you've already hit the most important point, that it is a religious matter. It is a matter not to be decided by the State, because all opinions on it are founded in religious doctrine. For the State to make a law regarding it is to establish a religious viewpoint as law. Which is why the stand is pro-choice. It is possible to be against abortion and still be pro-choice. One is a personal viewpoint and the other is a policy-making one. The various opinions and religious turmoil should be evidence enough that this is a spiritual decision that should be completely removed from the purview of the State and the courts and remain at home and at church, where it belongs.


Because they're so young and stupid and their children have little chance at a normal childhood.

I disagree, it is typical anti-sexuality tripe that has been around since churches first started popping up.

But you've already hit the most important point, that it is a religious matter. It is a matter not to be decided by the State, because all opinions on it are founded in religious doctrine. For the State to make a law regarding it is to establish a religious viewpoint as law. Which is why the stand is pro-choice. It is possible to be against abortion and still be pro-choice. One is a personal viewpoint and the other is a policy-making one. The various opinions and religious turmoil should be evidence enough that this is a spiritual decision that should be completely removed from the purview of the State and the courts and remain at home and at church, where it belongs.

But you said yourself that if the line were drawn at which point a baby becomes a person, it would be before the 9th month of gestation. The pro-abortionists fight even the slightest restriction on the killing of what you agree is human. Do you support restrictions on the abortion of nearly full-term babies? Do you support restricting abortions to only those babies who are younger than the youngest premie to survive? If you do not, do you claim that premies are not human?

I disagree, it is typical anti-sexuality tripe that has been around since churches first started popping up.

It's not anti-sex to note that it is far from ideal for underage girls to have babies from older men who will not take responsibility for their offspring. It is common sense.

I've certainly never heard that one. Hell, the journey along the Fallopian tube takes about four days. By the time the womb cavity is reached (five to six days), the cell cluster becomes hollow and fluid-filled, and is referred to as a blastocyst.

Which part here is the hollow and fluid-filled "brain" of a five-day old blastocyst? Could you point it out please?

http://www.advancedfertility.com/pics/day%205%20blastocyst.jpg

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/12/owned35.jpg

But you said yourself that if the line were drawn at which point a baby becomes a person, it would be before the 9th month of gestation. The pro-abortionists fight even the slightest restriction on the killing of what you agree is human. Do you support restrictions on the abortion of nearly full-term babies? Do you support restricting abortions to only those babies who are younger than the youngest premie to survive? If you do not, do you claim that premies are not human?
Where I personally draw the line is not relevant because that would be using my religious beliefs instead of yours. Mine are no more valid when it comes to making legislation. Right now, today, a person is a person in the eyes of the law when they have been born or removed from the womb. When the theocrats stop trying to impose their religious beliefs through law and want to sit down and define human life as something other than a few cells, we can try to find a scientific answer to what makes a person a person. But right now that answer lies in faith and faith alone.


It's not anti-sex to note that it is far from ideal for underage girls to have babies from older men who will not take responsibility for their offspring. It is common sense.

It is the anti-sex puritan society we live in that relegates all sexual activity and its results to require extreme privacy. Which is what we were talking about, we were never talking about deadbeat dads and the weakness of your argument is showing in that you have gone completely off the rails.

Where I personally draw the line is not relevant because that would be using my religious beliefs instead of yours. Mine are no more valid when it comes to making legislation. Right now, today, a person is a person in the eyes of the law when they have been born or removed from the womb. When the theocrats stop trying to impose their religious beliefs through law and want to sit down and define human life as something other than a few cells, we can try to find a scientific answer to what makes a person a person. But right now that answer lies in faith and faith alone.

Actually, your position is relevant, because

1) You asked where I draw the line and I want to know where you do, and
2) It underscores the difficulty of the pro-abortionists' position. So many insist that there be no restrictions of any kind on abortion at any stage of development, but won't acknowledge the disconnects in their own reasoning when it comes to what to do with the premie situation. Do you support Obama's position that abortion survivors are not human and therefore do not deserve protection as such?
3) You want your faith based opinion (that unborn babies are not human) to dictate legislation (that they do not deserve the protection of the law).

It is the anti-sex puritan society we live in that relegates all sexual activity and its results to require extreme privacy. Which is what we were talking about, we were never talking about deadbeat dads and the weakness of your argument is showing in that you have gone completely off the rails.

You asked why I would be upset at young Spears getting pregnant, and I told you why. You wanted my answer to confirm your opinion of America's sexuality and it did not. If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.

Actually, your position is relevant, because

1) You asked where I draw the line and I want to know where you do, and
2) It underscores the difficulty of the pro-abortionists' position. So many insist that there be no restrictions of any kind on abortion at any stage of development, but won't acknowledge the disconnects in their own reasoning when it comes to what to do with the premie situation. Do you support Obama's position that abortion survivors are not human and therefore do not deserve protection as such?
3) You want your faith based opinion (that unborn babies are not human) to dictate legislation (that they do not deserve the protection of the law).


I don't want opinion to dictate legislation, I want fact to. We are talking about cells within the mother's body. That much is fact. Cancer, bacteria, viruses, parasites are all cells within a person's body that are alive and that get no legal protection. Eggs inside of a woman don't get protection. We have no facts to dictate what makes a person a person, we just have faith.
As for my personal beliefs, I do not know the answer. I think that our spirit is part of the spirit of our parents. But I don't know when it enters us or how. Or if the universe is diminished by us if we are never born. I think that it is, but I do not know. And the choice I would ask of a partner is not something I am willing to force upon others. It isn't even something I am willing to force upon a mate.
At the end of the day it takes no faith to treat any diagnosed undesired tissue growth inside the body as the sole affair of the person in whom it is growing. It requires a great deal of religious conviction to say that it is a person. The law should remain atheist, that is the only way for everyone living under the law to truly be free to worship. I also defend your right to not have an abortion.