Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting you don't deny my proof that your affinity for abortion means you are killing living human beings. A million people are being killed every year by abortion. That's more deaths than any war. How on earth do you justify mass-killings on that scale?
I don't get caught up in silly debates over when life begins or ends because it's irrelevant.
Life never begins and never ends. It simply always is. I have known pregnant women who have felt the moment a soul embodied their fetus.
Is that when it begins? Or is it just the physical act? Is God an abortionist because of all the miscarriages?
I support peoples' right to terminate their own physical lives as well. Are they murderers?
Why don't we get beyond these childish arguments that have been played out for about 3 decades and figure out how to end war, end pesticide use, end ecological destruction, end pollution, and end abortion. They're all barbaric acts, but necessary for a young society that is not yet structured or evolved enough to eliminate demand for any of them.
Time to end your liberal versus conservative screed and propose solutions that don't involve government forcing women to have children they cannot support and that the same advocates against abortion do not want government funds to help support.
Complexity of this situation goes far beyond your simpleton little argument here.
Give me an example that proves my definition wrong. Can you do that?
You have no concept of "logic," do you?
You provided a definition. People can accept it or not. There are no "examples" against a definition. They can only make more or less sense. For example, under your definition, women would be required to get a death certificate when they miscarry (which happens much more often than pregnancy).
I think your definition is silly. It's goal is not scientific or logical, but ideological - it's meant to reinforce your anti-abortion beliefs. So your defintion will never be accepted or adopted by the American public, which strongly supports a woman's right to choose.
I don't think the issue of life is relevant because you can't take two things that don't have life and make life out of them, Women ultimately have the choice to stay pregnant or not , and as long as they have the choice , It's theirs to make
Hah - your "truthiness" tagline reminds me of a brilliant bit Jon Stewart did at the Republican convention.
His female correspondent (don't know her name) asked Republicans what they thought of Bristol Palin's decision to keep her baby.
They would, of course applaud it, and then the correspondent would say something like, "So, she had the freedom to decide for herself what was best for her. I'm trying to think of the word.... what is it.... She made a ...." And then the people would either catch on to what she was doing and refuse to say the word "choice" or, as one young woman did, the correspondent opened her mind and she couldn't argue the logic.
Quite brilliant insight into the fact that ending abortion can be done with legislation about as easily as ending war.
It's mod cut-inappropriate saying someone made a "choice" to keep a baby. Human life is the default. It's like saying you made a "choice" not to machine gun a kindergarten class or a "choice" not to rape a bunch of women.
Now that I've humored your off-topic digression, you still haven't told us how you can justify killing a living developing human being who's no different than you except in stage of development.
Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 03-03-2009 at 03:14 PM..
Reason: discuss topic, not other users
The debate SHOULD be over ....abortion is legal....so why do you keep debating it????
Why don't you tell us how you can justify this country killing over a million developing human beings? And how on earth can you think mass killing should be legal? Man evolves. Apes evolve. Liberals remain neanderthals.
I didn't say "alive". I said "embryo". A sperm is not an embryo. An egg is not an embryo.
This thread's title is "life" not "human life". Please be more careful.
What makes "human life" is a philosophical notion. Difficult to legislate. Belongs in the realm of "religious" discussion.
What defines a human organism is easier to pin down.
But this thread is just another conservative screed built on ignorance of science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
