PDA

View Full Version : Pro-choice or pro-life?



iceblizzard69
04-24-2003, 06:27 PM
We haven't had this question here yet, so lets get to it. Are you pro-choice or pro-life?



I am pro-choice. I think it would be a terrible thing if abortion was illegal in this country because of people's religious beliefs. I wonder what the percentage is of pro-lifers that are religious. I bet it is a lot higher than the percentage of Americans who are religious.

LeftCoastPhin
04-24-2003, 06:31 PM
Agree one hundred percent, I am also pro-choice. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? This issue boggles me.

iceblizzard69
04-24-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Agree one hundred percent, I am also pro-choice. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? This issue boggles me.

I heard in North Dakota that it is still illegal for unmarried couples to live together, and they recently voted to keep the law. There is supposed to be a seperation from church and state, but the church has WAY too much influence in government nowadays. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state, and I don't think religion should influence laws.

LeftCoastPhin
04-24-2003, 06:38 PM
LOL at North Dakota, but yet in the Bible Belt down south you can marry when you are 14!! LMAO, incredible!

Joe Friday
06-20-2003, 08:53 AM
As much as I dislike the idea of abortion, nor would I consent to my partner having one (if I had any input), the option must remain legal. The end choice has to be made by the mother and she would have to deal with the end result. There still remains the question of when does life start? Legally, religiously and scientifically, the definitions are all different. Being that we have a society that is suppose to subscribe to religious freedom, this is a legal, secular matter and should not be dictated by religious zealots.

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2003, 09:30 AM
My wife and I agree we could never have one, but also agree that it should remain legal. That being said I'm STRONGLY opposed to late term abortions except the VERY rare instances where the mothers life is in danger.

Bobby Humphrey
06-20-2003, 10:38 AM
i don't think killing bables should be legal. u don't want a kid, than close your legs.

Migs182005
06-20-2003, 10:51 AM
I agree.

I think it has nothing to do with religion.
I consider it murder. The baby is alive, a living person. While it might not be born yet, it's still living. What's the difference between killing the baby and killing another person? It's murder.

If you don't want the problem, do what Bobby said, close your damn legs.

t2thejz
06-20-2003, 12:24 PM
Im not sure what to think. I think it is killing a baby abd it is wrong and i would almost never advise someone to get one, but wonder if a girl got raped and she got pregnate. Then im not so sure if it should be illegal

ohall
06-20-2003, 12:28 PM
I'm a pro-choice conservative. I don't think it's consistent to want government out of everything except for abortion.

The question at hand is a question only a woman and her God can work through IMO. In short I am not a woman, and I can't imagine if I was that I would appreciate ppl mainly men telling me what I can or can't do.

Oliver...

ohall
06-20-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by LeftCoastPhin
Agree one hundred percent, I am also pro-choice. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? This issue boggles me.

Some day the government may have to make abortion a way of life, a way of controlling the size of our population. If over population runs crazy like in China you never know what the future holds.

Oliver...

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Oliver
I'm a pro-choice conservative. I don't think it's consistent to want government out of everything except for abortion.

The question at hand is a question only a woman and her God can work through IMO. In short I am not a woman, and I can't imagine if I was that I would appreciate ppl mainly men telling me what I can or can't do.

Oliver...

Damn Oliver, do we disagree on ANYTHING when it doesn't involve the Phins?

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2003, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by Migs182005
I agree.

I think it has nothing to do with religion.
I consider it murder. The baby is alive, a living person. While it might not be born yet, it's still living. What's the difference between killing the baby and killing another person? It's murder.

If you don't want the problem, do what Bobby said, close your damn legs.

Actually, a "baby" is a living person. A "fetus" is an extension of it's mother, incapable of living without her support. The question is ENTIRELY dependent on your spiritual beliefs, because the question revolves around the soul. Does a fetus have a soul? If so, when does it acquire it? Are you telling me that a collection of a couple hundred cells is sentient? It has self awareness? If you believe that, then you are making a decision based solely(pardon the pun), on your religious teachings, because there's nothing in science to back that up. What science says is that where intelligence is concerned, your 3 month old Golden Retriever is smarter than a 3 month old human baby(it's far more intelligent than a fetus). But the law won't say boo if you decide to euthanise that Golden Retriever. Where the distinction is made is ONLY when you account for that 3 month old baby having a soul which your religion says that dog does not possess. If you consider eastern spirituality which ascribes a soul to all animals, that dog is now on the same level as that child. If you consider atheism which removes the soul from the child you once again have parity. I'm not going to dispute your views on abortion, but to say that "religion/spirituality" has nothing to do with it is extremely ignorant.

Bobby Humphrey
06-20-2003, 03:46 PM
Oliver, i am in china now and married to a chinese. abortion here is forced on the people, no choices allowed. if u are married and have 1 kid, u have to go to the hospital every 3 months, and if u are pregnate, they kill it on the spot. thank god that because i am not chinese, my family does not have to follow this awful law.

this will not happen in north america in our life time. (imo) china has almost 2 billion people (although your text book will say something like 1.3 billion) the states has only 300 million and canada only has like 32 million. being that canada is bigger than china, and america is only slightly smaller than china, there is lots of room to go around. this is good news for miggs, now he can have a family of 37!!!!!

PhinPhan1227
06-20-2003, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Humphrey
Oliver, i am in china now and married to a chinese. abortion here is forced on the people, no choices allowed. if u are married and have 1 kid, u have to go to the hospital every 3 months, and if u are pregnate, they kill it on the spot. thank god that because i am not chinese, my family does not have to follow this awful law.

this will not happen in north america in our life time. (imo) china has almost 2 billion people (although your text book will say something like 1.3 billion) the states has only 300 million and canada only has like 32 million. being that canada is bigger than china, and america is only slightly smaller than china, there is lots of room to go around. this is good news for miggs, now he can have a family of 37!!!!!

Actually, this won't happen in America so long as we remain a prosperous industrialized country. Put us in an agricultural economy, and anythings possible. I don't see us ever AGAIN having forced abortions, but bear in mind that racist policies like Eugenics actually DID involve such acts here in America, and it wasn't very long ago either. Merely the FEAR of an increase in "minority" populations allowed those despicable practices. Never say never man. The minute you feel that a freedom can never be taken away is the moment that freedom becomes vulnerable.

iceblizzard69
06-20-2003, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Migs182005
I agree.

I think it has nothing to do with religion.
I consider it murder. The baby is alive, a living person. While it might not be born yet, it's still living. What's the difference between killing the baby and killing another person? It's murder.

If you don't want the problem, do what Bobby said, close your damn legs.

Now answer this, are you religious?

See, people who are pro-life don't say it has to do with religion, but all of them are religious!

baccarat
06-20-2003, 05:20 PM
I am pro choice w/ the exception of partial birth abortions unless it's a case of saving the mother or rape. The fourth Amendment, the privacy amendment, allows one to the privacy of one's self/body. This, in my interperation, include the right to choose a procedure such as abortion. In a perfect world abortion wouldn't exist, but I believe a woman has the right to choose. That's just my two cents.


Originally posted by Migs182005
If you don't want the problem, do what Bobby said, close your damn legs.


Two words:
R-A-P-E and I-N-C-E-S-T

t2thejz
06-20-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Oliver


Some day the government may have to make abortion a way of life, a way of controlling the size of our population. If over population runs crazy like in China you never know what the future holds.

Oliver... I never thought of that either. Good point

Migs182005
06-20-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69


Now answer this, are you religious?

See, people who are pro-life don't say it has to do with religion, but all of them are religious!

Yes I am religious. I guess If un-religious people see a baby inside a woman as something that has no life, there's nothing I can argue. It's their belief.

The only thing I can say is this

:lol: kind of corny but:

Choose pro life, aren't you glad your mom did? ;)

t2thejz
06-20-2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by Migs182005


Yes I am religious. I guess If un-religious people see a baby inside a woman as something that has no life, there's nothing I can argue. It's their belief.

The only thing I can say is this

:lol: kind of corny but:

Choose pro life, aren't you glad your mom did? ;)
Actuelly my mom was 20 when she was pregnate with me. My dad was just out of college and starting his career as an officer in the army. They didnt have much money and my mom was seriously thinking about an abortion and if it wasnt for my dad being a conservitive and pro life I probably wouldnt be here. So ya I am glad:lol:

PhinPhan1227
06-23-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Migs182005


Yes I am religious. I guess If un-religious people see a baby inside a woman as something that has no life, there's nothing I can argue. It's their belief.

The only thing I can say is this

:lol: kind of corny but:

Choose pro life, aren't you glad your mom did? ;)

"Life" is hardly a standard. That cow that died to make that burger you just ate for lunch had "life". The dog that's getting euthanised as we speak down at the pound has "life". The chimpanzee down at the lab that's being infected with aids so that he can be disected next month has "life". The question is whether any of them have a "soul". And if you don't think the issue of whether or not something has a soul is not a religious/spiritual issue, than I'd recommend you do some more research into your religion.

Barbarian
06-25-2003, 06:23 PM
Originally posted by Migs182005
Choose pro life, aren't you glad your mom did? ;)

I would suggest to nearly anybody to choose to have the baby.

But there must remain that choice.

Statistically speaking Abortion remaining legal has actually saved lives.

When Abortions were illegal, more women and babies died in "Back alley abortions" per year/per capita than fetuses have died (again per year/per capita) since roe v wade.

Fewer deaths are occouring now.

That choice remains essential or else we will return to the days of underground abortions that kill both the fetus and the mother.

baccarat
06-25-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


I would suggest to nearly anybody to choose to have the baby.

But there must remain that choice.

Statistically speaking Abortion remaining legal has actually saved lives.

When Abortions were illegal, more women and babies died in "Back alley abortions" per year/per capita than fetuses have died (again per year/per capita) since roe v wade.

Fewer deaths are occouring now.

That choice remains essential or else we will return to the days of underground abortions that kill both the fetus and the mother.

After reading your signature, how can anybody not agree?

MOULDSROCKS
06-28-2003, 06:05 PM
I'm wierd i guess.... i think abortion is wrong, i'm NOT very religious, i don;t know if it should or should not be legal, but leaning towards illegal b/c it is like murder to me....


but i do support stem cell research....


lol

Marino1983
07-05-2003, 09:32 AM
I am pro choice moderate ..... The decision is basicly personal for either just the mother or the couple !! The only way this would change (imo) is if the mother and or couple is under the age of 18....

The goverment has NO right making this type of a decision on any level !!!!!!!!!! :yell: :fire: :tantrum:



Marino1983

DeDolfan
07-05-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
We haven't had this question here yet, so lets get to it. Are you pro-choice or pro-life?



I am pro-choice. I think it would be a terrible thing if abortion was illegal in this country because of people's religious beliefs. I wonder what the percentage is of pro-lifers that are religious. I bet it is a lot higher than the percentage of Americans who are religious.

Without a doubt, pro LIFE. The legal abortion law is one of the most contradictory laws in the land. Let's see, a woman can legally kill her unborn child but yet a person can be arrested for injuring an unborn child as in the Peterson case. it's gotta be one way or the other.
And for you pro choicers............. that is fine. When a woman chhoses to lay down and engage in sex, she has already made her choice. If she doesn't want a child, then take whatever necassry precautions to prevent the pregancy to begin with. All this garbage of,"oh, i can't care for it and the like" is just that....garbage. What it boils down to is being responsible and sadly, most of these very ppl have no concept of what that means. For everything we do in life, there are consequences, so deal with it. But the bottom line is that if ANYone is not prepared to raise and properly care for a child, don't have sex. It's as simple as that. Just don't make an unborn child the result of one's stupidity.

DeDolfan
07-05-2003, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
I am pro choice moderate ..... The decision is basicly personal for either just the mother or the couple !! The only way this would change (imo) is if the mother and or couple is under the age of 18....

The goverment has NO right making this type of a decision on any level !!!!!!!!!! :yell: :fire: :tantrum:



Marino1983

I guess you would also maen that the government has "NO" right making any laws then? One such as the one against murder?

XoPhinsoX
07-05-2003, 06:34 PM
Have the baby.

Give it to a wealthy family that can't ;\.

People will even buy a baby from you nowadays. . .

Hmmmmm.... :lol:

Marino1983
07-06-2003, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


I guess you would also maen that the government has "NO" right making any laws then? One such as the one against murder?





Who are you to tell adults what to do in the privacy of their bedrooms ?????????????? That is the one of the many problems of this country,,, people thinking that their beliefs should be instilled upon EVERYONE ... :fire:

Your murder characterisation is YOUR convoluted opinion !!! There is no law against abortion,, the majoity has spoken .. It is called choice and if you have a problem with it tuff sh!t !!!:evil:


Marino1983

Marino1983
07-06-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan




And for you pro choicers............. that is fine. When a woman chhoses to lay down and engage in sex, she has already made her choice. If she doesn't want a child, then take whatever necassry precautions to prevent the pregancy to begin with. All this garbage of,"oh, i can't care for it and the like" is just that....garbage. What it boils down to is being responsible and sadly, most of these very ppl have no concept of what that means. For everything we do in life, there are consequences, so deal with it. But the bottom line is that if ANYone is not prepared to raise and properly care for a child, don't have sex. It's as simple as that. Just don't make an unborn child the result of one's stupidity.




Man you reek of right wing garbage !!!!!!! You better get your self into the 21st century, it is sooo funny that people like you cry about getting the goverment off the back or out of the lives of the tax payer but it is allright for you to make decisions of how, if, or when a person can have sex !!!:goof:

What it boils down to is minding your own buisness !!! It is sad how the elite conservatives THINK they have all the answers and THINK they can decide personal decisions for the population :confused: ..

Yes there are consequences that have to be paid and if someone does something illegal then they should be held accountable... You who think that YOU are some sort of moral police, have no say in personal matters such as this !! As I responded in another post ,, abortion is not illegal, the majority has spoken... DEAL WITH IT !!


Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
07-07-2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Without a doubt, pro LIFE. The legal abortion law is one of the most contradictory laws in the land. Let's see, a woman can legally kill her unborn child but yet a person can be arrested for injuring an unborn child as in the Peterson case. it's gotta be one way or the other.
And for you pro choicers............. that is fine. When a woman chhoses to lay down and engage in sex, she has already made her choice. If she doesn't want a child, then take whatever necassry precautions to prevent the pregancy to begin with. All this garbage of,"oh, i can't care for it and the like" is just that....garbage. What it boils down to is being responsible and sadly, most of these very ppl have no concept of what that means. For everything we do in life, there are consequences, so deal with it. But the bottom line is that if ANYone is not prepared to raise and properly care for a child, don't have sex. It's as simple as that. Just don't make an unborn child the result of one's stupidity.

I love this argument..."when a woman chooses to lay down", she has made her choice. That's justification for a man to tell her what she's got to do with her body. It still comes down to the question of whether something which is an aglomeration of cells is a living human being or not. In my opinion, there's no contradiction. It should be illegal to kill a VIABLE fetus, unless the mothers life is in danger. I'm oppossed to late term abortions for that reason. However, if a fetus is incapable of surviving outside it's mother, I just don't see it as being a sentient being with a soul. The bottom line is, can you prove that a fetus has a soul and is conscious? If not, then you can't show murder.

DeDolfan
07-08-2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983






Who are you to tell adults what to do in the privacy of their bedrooms ?????????????? That is the one of the many problems of this country,,, people thinking that their beliefs should be instilled upon EVERYONE ... :fire:

Your murder characterisation is YOUR convoluted opinion !!! There is no law against abortion,, the majoity has spoken .. It is called choice and if you have a problem with it tuff sh!t !!!:evil:


Marino1983

First of all, what does privavi in the bedroom have to do with this? Abortion being murder is NOT a belief but fact. Life begins at conception so deal with it!
True, there is no law against abortion and nO the majority did not speak. ONE judge in '73 said so in his opinion that it was unconstitutional and that is bS. Why should judges be allowed to change the laws anyway? They are not elected to do so but appointed to uphold the law, not to change it. That friend is one of the biggest problems in this country. If you can't deal with that, then "tuff sh!t" !!!





:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

Marino1983
07-08-2003, 09:11 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DeDolfan
[B]

First of all, what does privavi in the bedroom have to do with this? Abortion being murder is NOT a belief but fact. Life begins at conception so deal with it!
True, there is no law against abortion and nO the majority did not speak. ONE judge in '73 said so in his opinion that it was unconstitutional and that is bS. Why should judges be allowed to change the laws anyway? They are not elected to do so but appointed to uphold the law, not to change it. That friend is one of the biggest problems in this country. If you can't deal with that, then "tuff sh!t" !!!





It has EVERYTHING to do with privacy in the bedroom and freedoms EVERYWHERE else !!!:goof: You show me where there is a law that states abortion is murder ..... Like I posted before,, that is YOUR convoluted self rightous opinion... I have nothing to deal with because as I have already posted, abortion is legal and you can put that in YOUR conservative pipe and smoke it !!!!!

You decided to respond to my post in an arrogant and obstinate manner !!!! I could care less what you (or anyone else in this world) think of me or my political views DeDolphin,, your entitled to your opinion and so am I.. But don't attack my post's with your self rightous right wing b-s !!! :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:


Marino1983

PhinPhan1227
07-09-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


First of all, what does privavi in the bedroom have to do with this? Abortion being murder is NOT a belief but fact. Life begins at conception so deal with it!
True, there is no law against abortion and nO the majority did not speak. ONE judge in '73 said so in his opinion that it was unconstitutional and that is bS. Why should judges be allowed to change the laws anyway? They are not elected to do so but appointed to uphold the law, not to change it. That friend is one of the biggest problems in this country. If you can't deal with that, then "tuff sh!t" !!!


:fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

First of all sparky, you need to embrace the concept of fact versus opinion. The fact is that at and for a whle after conception a fetus is no more than a loose collection of cells which isn't even visible to the naked eye. Is that "alive"? Sure, but so is you apendix. Is taking your appendix out murder? Until the 3rd trimester, the fetus is not sufficiently developed to survive without the aid of it's mothers womb. Until then, you can't even call the fetus a distinct entity. And what FULLY makes your comments idiotic is the fact that you can't distinguish the difference between "ending life", and "murder". I guarantee that you've taken part in ending lives today by the time you eat lunch. If you want to call that murder, then I suggest you turn yourself in as an accomplice in the death of those innocent animals. Where opinions come into play, is the definition of what constitutes sentient human life versus animal life. For those who feel their religion dictates it, the soul and sentience starts at conception. Somehow a collection of 3-4 cells houses a complete human soul. Seems it would be a bit cramped in there to me, but whatever. As for a judge deciding the law, that's called the Constitution Sparky, and I suggest that you read it sometime. As for the majority of the country supporting it, I can assure you that people are so strongly divided by this issue that if the majority was against it, they would have elected Presidents who would have changed the make-up of the Supreme Court by now. Further, every poll done for the last few decades has shown overall support for Choice. Ignorance isn't bliss man, it just feels that way.

DeDolfan
07-09-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


I love this argument..."when a woman chooses to lay down", she has made her choice. That's justification for a man to tell her what she's got to do with her body. It still comes down to the question of whether something which is an aglomeration of cells is a living human being or not. In my opinion, there's no contradiction. It should be illegal to kill a VIABLE fetus, unless the mothers life is in danger. I'm oppossed to late term abortions for that reason. However, if a fetus is incapable of surviving outside it's mother, I just don't see it as being a sentient being with a soul. The bottom line is, can you prove that a fetus has a soul and is conscious? If not, then you can't show murder.

But you're missing part of the point. It's not whether the fetus has a soul and/or consious, it's about whether it is a living being OR not. Once the egg is fertilized and actually divides into two cells, then it is obviously alive and whether it can survive outside the womb is irrelevent. It is only trying to make for a case one way or the other. But the real bottom line is whether it is living or not which would define life. Read what i said in my first post on this, everyone else also, What it mostly boils down to is that the majority seeking abortions apparently not repsonsible or they would have taken precaution means in the first place. So ya'll can get as pizzed at you want by this and quite frankly, I don't care. Personally, i'm a little sick of watching tax dollars pay for an abortion simply because some lazy couple were irresponsble enought to basically just say, we'll take our chances. If I get knocked up, the gov will pay to get rid of it. It has nothing to do with someone trying to tell someone else when they can have sex. Only to be responsible and granted there are some rare exceptions to this but not the general rule tho.
But the real iroiny of this is, aren't you pro-"choicers" glad that your mothers were pro-lifers?? Think about it.

DeDolfan
07-09-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983





Man you reek of right wing garbage !!!!!!! You better get your self into the 21st century, it is sooo funny that people like you cry about getting the goverment off the back or out of the lives of the tax payer but it is allright for you to make decisions of how, if, or when a person can have sex !!!:goof:

What it boils down to is minding your own buisness !!! It is sad how the elite conservatives THINK they have all the answers and THINK they can decide personal decisions for the population :confused: ..

Yes there are consequences that have to be paid and if someone does something illegal then they should be held accountable... You who think that YOU are some sort of moral police, have no say in personal matters such as this !! As I responded in another post ,, abortion is not illegal, the majority has spoken... DEAL WITH IT !!


Marino1983

When did I say anything about the gov telling ppl when to have sex??
And i AM minding my own business, thank you. If only one abortion is paid thru public ***'t, then it is my business as well. But that ain't it, it's the morality of it all. And I ask you again, what "majority? I hope you're not reffering to this poll :confused: :eek:

Sniper
07-09-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


When did I say anything about the gov telling ppl when to have sex??
And i AM minding my own business, thank you. If only one abortion is paid thru public ***'t, then it is my business as well. But that ain't it, it's the morality of it all. And I ask you again, what "majority? I hope you're not reffering to this poll :confused: :eek:

M1983 probably means a famous 1973 Supreme Court case that was decided by 7-2 majority. In case you never heard of this case, it was called Roe vs. Wade. The court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, abortion is a case about privacy.

PhinPhan1227
07-09-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


But you're missing part of the point. It's not whether the fetus has a soul and/or consious, it's about whether it is a living being OR not. Once the egg is fertilized and actually divides into two cells, then it is obviously alive and whether it can survive outside the womb is irrelevent. It is only trying to make for a case one way or the other. But the real bottom line is whether it is living or not which would define life. Read what i said in my first post on this, everyone else also, What it mostly boils down to is that the majority seeking abortions apparently not repsonsible or they would have taken precaution means in the first place. So ya'll can get as pizzed at you want by this and quite frankly, I don't care. Personally, i'm a little sick of watching tax dollars pay for an abortion simply because some lazy couple were irresponsble enought to basically just say, we'll take our chances. If I get knocked up, the gov will pay to get rid of it. It has nothing to do with someone trying to tell someone else when they can have sex. Only to be responsible and granted there are some rare exceptions to this but not the general rule tho.
But the real iroiny of this is, aren't you pro-"choicers" glad that your mothers were pro-lifers?? Think about it.

Actually, my mother aborted a child before I was born. Knowing my parents, they wouldn't have had 4 kids, so I in fact owe my life to abortion, since I probably wouldn't have been concieved otherwise. As for the part of your "point" which I missed, I did nothing of the sort. You're saying that it's wrong to end a pregnancy simply because a fetus is "alive", regardless of whether it has a soul or not. If that's the case than it's wrong to euthanise dogs, and it's wrong to kill animals for food. Every animal that man kills is "alive". The difference is whether it has a soul or not. That's the ONLY thing which seperates a human from an animal. If you're a vegitarian, than I'll allow for your belief that it's wrong to take any "life", but otherwise you're a hypocrite. As for tax dollars at work, it's a HECK of a lot cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay welfare for a kid for 18 years. I can promise you that the woman who gets gov aid for an abortion would be getting gov aid for her kid. Care to compare over $100k for 18 years of child welfare to $100 for an abortion? Even better, how about spending a few bucks in education dollars to keep the kids from getting pregnant in the first place? You've presented two arguments here...

1)It's wrong to take a life

2)It's wrong for the gov to pay for it

...I think I've shown that both arguments are severely flawed. Again, if you want to claim that your religion is against abortion, that's fine. Faith is faith and there's no way to argue for or against it. But the factual arguments you're tried to present are so full of holes they're laughable.

baccarat
07-10-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


M1983 probably means a famous 1973 Supreme Court case that was decided by 7-2 majority. In case you never heard of this case, it was called Roe vs. Wade. The court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, abortion is a case about privacy.

I think you mean the Fourth Amendment.

PhinPhan1227
07-10-2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_


I think you mean the Fourth Amendment.


You're correct, it was the Fourth, not the fourteenth. However, if someone was stoned, couldn't they use...

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

...as casus belie for the argument that since a fetus is neither born nor naturalized into the United States, it cannot enjoy the rights and freedoms of a US Citizen?



;) ;) ;)

Sniper
07-11-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_


I think you mean the Fourth Amendment.

No, I mean the 14th Amendment. The Due Process clause is understood to protect people's privacy. Here's, the actual Court opinion:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164 .

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+410+u!2Es!2E+113!3A]!28[group+edited!3A]!7C[level++case+citation!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

Cut and paste this link into your web address bar.

Sniper
07-11-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



You're correct, it was the Fourth, not the fourteenth. However, if someone was stoned, couldn't they use...

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

...as casus belie for the argument that since a fetus is neither born nor naturalized into the United States, it cannot enjoy the rights and freedoms of a US Citizen?



;) ;) ;)

That just shows you have a limited understanding of the due process clause. The Roe v. Wade decision was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause encompasses, among other things, the right to privacy. Go to the Supreme Court website or any reputable law website and look it up for yourself.

Feel free to comment when you grasp the subject material better.

PhinPhan1227
07-11-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


That just shows you have a limited understanding of the due process clause. The Roe v. Wade decision was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This clause encompasses, among other things, the right to privacy. Go to the Supreme Court website or any reputable law website and look it up for yourself.

Feel free to comment when you grasp the subject material better.


Jesus Sniper, pull your head out of your *** and learn to take a joke...sheesh.

Sniper
07-11-2003, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Jesus Sniper, pull your head out of your *** and learn to take a joke...sheesh.

Some joke. You incorrectly add your 2 cents to booyeah's comment because you think it sounds correct and to make yourself sound like some kind of expert. Funny stuff all right.

You can try to claim your post was a joke if you want, but if you were going to use humor, it would help if your facts were somewhat accurate. One thing is very clear; Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart probably would never hire you as a comedy writer because your comedic talents would make their shows go in the crapper.

MOULDSROCKS
07-12-2003, 01:54 PM
Pro-Life in my own personal philosophy (life starts at conception)

but unfortunately we need pro-choice laws so that women don't try to have illegal abortions and end up dying as a result.

The best thing Pro-Life people can do is to stop killing doctors :rolleyes: and try to convince people to have their baby and give it up for adoption and find an alternative solution.

baccarat
07-12-2003, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by Sniper
No, I mean the 14th Amendment.

Well you originally said:

The court decided that a woman's right to an abortion falls within the right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment protects the right to privacy by securing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

So when you originally posted about abortion being a privacy issue so I remarked about the Fourth Amendment's providing privacy to one's person, house, etc.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

Sniper
07-12-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_


Well you originally said:


The Fourth Amendment protects the right to privacy by securing the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.

So when you originally posted about abortion being a privacy issue so I remarked about the Fourth Amendment's providing privacy to one's person, house, etc.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/

That's fine and dandy, but I never disputed what the Fourth Amendment said. I was entirely correct by saying that the USSC based its decision on the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, which infers a right to privacy. You, on the other hand, are incorrectly applying the Fourth Amendment to Roe v. Wade.

In case you don't know, the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The Right to Privacy is inferred from various sections of the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is one section of the Bill of Rights where right to privacy is inferred. The 14th Amendment is another section and is this section that the USSC used in Roe v. Wade.

The Amendment used is stated very plainly in the Court's opinion for Roe v. Wade. Talk to a lawyer if you don't believe the Supreme Court.

baccarat
07-12-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by Sniper


That's fine and dandy, but I never disputed what the Fourth Amendment said. I was entirely correct by saying that the USSC based its decision on the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, which infers a right to privacy. You, on the other hand, are incorrectly applying the Fourth Amendment to Roe v. Wade.

In case you don't know, the right to privacy is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Bill of Rights. The Right to Privacy is inferred from various sections of the Bill of Rights. The 4th Amendment is one section of the Bill of Rights where right to privacy is inferred. The 14th Amendment is another section and is this section that the USSC used in Roe v. Wade.

The Amendment used is stated very plainly in the Court's opinion for Roe v. Wade. Talk to a lawyer if you don't believe the Supreme Court.

Ok, that's true but I was refering to how I reached my opinion on the subject. I believe that b/c the Fourth Amendment protects the right to be secure in their person meaning the govt. shouldn't say you can't have this medical procedure known as abortion. That's my backing up my opinion, not how the judges in the 70's backed up theirs.

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


Some joke. You incorrectly add your 2 cents to booyeah's comment because you think it sounds correct and to make yourself sound like some kind of expert. Funny stuff all right.

You can try to claim your post was a joke if you want, but if you were going to use humor, it would help if your facts were somewhat accurate. One thing is very clear; Dennis Miller or Jon Stewart probably would never hire you as a comedy writer because your comedic talents would make their shows go in the crapper.

Gee...the line "well, if you were stoned", was a bit too subtle for you? I guess anything short of Red Skelton slapstick is just a bit too cerebral for you?

DeDolfan
07-14-2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by MOULDSROCKS
Pro-Life in my own personal philosophy (life starts at conception)

but unfortunately we need pro-choice laws so that women don't try to have illegal abortions and end up dying as a result.

The best thing Pro-Life people can do is to stop killing doctors :rolleyes: and try to convince people to have their baby and give it up for adoption and find an alternative solution.

That is pretty good advice for both sides to be able find some common ground on.

DeDolfan
07-14-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Actually, my mother aborted a child before I was born. Knowing my parents, they wouldn't have had 4 kids, so I in fact owe my life to abortion, since I probably wouldn't have been concieved otherwise. As for the part of your "point" which I missed, I did nothing of the sort. You're saying that it's wrong to end a pregnancy simply because a fetus is "alive", regardless of whether it has a soul or not. If that's the case than it's wrong to euthanise dogs, and it's wrong to kill animals for food. Every animal that man kills is "alive". The difference is whether it has a soul or not. That's the ONLY thing which seperates a human from an animal. If you're a vegitarian, than I'll allow for your belief that it's wrong to take any "life", but otherwise you're a hypocrite. As for tax dollars at work, it's a HECK of a lot cheaper to pay for an abortion than it is to pay welfare for a kid for 18 years. I can promise you that the woman who gets gov aid for an abortion would be getting gov aid for her kid. Care to compare over $100k for 18 years of child welfare to $100 for an abortion? Even better, how about spending a few bucks in education dollars to keep the kids from getting pregnant in the first place? You've presented two arguments here...

1)It's wrong to take a life

2)It's wrong for the gov to pay for it

...I think I've shown that both arguments are severely flawed. Again, if you want to claim that your religion is against abortion, that's fine. Faith is faith and there's no way to argue for or against it. But the factual arguments you're tried to present are so full of holes they're laughable.

No, what is laughable is how you have been comparing a human life with that of a dog or a cow! And all this hoopla about the 14th or 4 th amendments and wether it pertains to privacy or not is actually rather moot. As i said before, it's about morals about what is right and/or wrong. Just because something is legal does not make it right. I have not once agrued about the legal aspects, only the moral ones. But if you feel that since you are a part of the majority that agrees with all this, fine. But just remember that the "majority" is not automatically right, just ask the lemmings !! :lol:

PhinPhan1227
07-14-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


No, what is laughable is how you have been comparing a human life with that of a dog or a cow! And all this hoopla about the 14th or 4 th amendments and wether it pertains to privacy or not is actually rather moot. As i said before, it's about morals about what is right and/or wrong. Just because something is legal does not make it right. I have not once agrued about the legal aspects, only the moral ones. But if you feel that since you are a part of the majority that agrees with all this, fine. But just remember that the "majority" is not automatically right, just ask the lemmings !! :lol:

Biologically, there's little difference between a fetus/infant, and a dog. That's what you're failing to grasp when you try and argue that this isn't a religious issue. If you take the "soul" out of the equation than what justification can you give for giving a fetus more rights than a dog? Could you possibly answer that question just ONCE?

Marino1983
07-14-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


No, what is laughable is how you have been comparing a human life with that of a dog or a cow! And all this hoopla about the 14th or 4 th amendments and wether it pertains to privacy or not is actually rather moot. As i said before, it's about morals about what is right and/or wrong. Just because something is legal does not make it right. I have not once agrued about the legal aspects, only the moral ones. But if you feel that since you are a part of the majority that agrees with all this, fine. But just remember that the "majority" is not automatically right, just ask the lemmings !! :lol:




Why is anything to do with law a moot point ? My problem with thinking like yours is that you absolutely believe YOUR opinion is gospel and ANYONE who does not agree with your views is immoral !!!:yell:

I am not touting abortion as a birth control,, it is a personal decision between to adults period... The moral or immoral question of their decision will be delt with when they meet their maker ...

You are entitled to your opinion but don't attack other post's because you whole heartily disagree with their opinion!!!!

Marino1983

DeDolfan
07-15-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Biologically, there's little difference between a fetus/infant, and a dog. That's what you're failing to grasp when you try and argue that this isn't a religious issue. If you take the "soul" out of the equation than what justification can you give for giving a fetus more rights than a dog? Could you possibly answer that question just ONCE?

We're not talking "biologically". Why do you bring the soul into it? Soul or not, if you think there is little difference between a human fetus and a dog, then you have serious troubles. So when does the human fetus gain it's soul anyway? At conception, 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd? Or even after birth?? i didn't bring the religious aspect into this. I'm just trying to explain when life begins, and as another human being, we or nobody else has the right to take another's 9human) life.

DeDolfan
07-15-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983





Why is anything to do with law a moot point ?

That's not what I said. go back and read all my posts and see what lead up to it.

My problem with thinking like yours is that you absolutely believe YOUR opinion is gospel and ANYONE who does not agree with your views is immoral !!!:yell:

When LIFE begins, is not an opinion. When i make a statement that we did not make the playoffs last year, is not an opinion.

I am not touting abortion as a birth control,, it is a personal decision between to adults period... The moral or immoral question of their decision will be delt with when they meet their maker ...

I wholeheartedly agree. While i am personally against abortion, that doesn't mean that I will run down anyone that chooses such. The wackos protesting and bombing the clinics are just that......WACKOS and need to be put away.

You are entitled to your opinion but don't attack other post's because you whole heartily disagree with their opinion!!!!

Would you rather I "attack the poster" instead??

Marino1983 :confused: :confused:

M-REAL
07-16-2003, 01:40 PM
I chose pro-choice too. If you don't want a baby at that point in your life or you want a one-night-stand, man do something that's barely done-WEAR A RUBBER! How hard is it to buy and use one? If you need help putting it on yourself there are depictions showing you how in some of the boxes.

PhinPhan1227
07-16-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


We're not talking "biologically". Why do you bring the soul into it? Soul or not, if you think there is little difference between a human fetus and a dog, then you have serious troubles. So when does the human fetus gain it's soul anyway? At conception, 1st trimester, 2nd or 3rd? Or even after birth?? i didn't bring the religious aspect into this. I'm just trying to explain when life begins, and as another human being, we or nobody else has the right to take another's 9human) life.

Ok...if we're not talking biology or spiritualy, then what's left? If you can't see that the only thing that seperates a man from a dog is self awareness and/or a soul, than I suggest that you try and educate yourself in the matters of biology, and bio-ethics. As for the right to take a HUMAN life, people do it all the time. We take people off life support, we execute criminals, we kill in self defense, and we kill in war. So there is no absolute rule against taking a human life. Heck, we even take innocent human lives in war when it serves the greater good. What you need to ask yourself, and what you've failed to address however is EXACTLY what qualifies as a "human" life. Is it a collection of cells so small that they are invisible to the naked eye? Is that ACTUALLY a human being to you? Can you HONESTLY tell me that collection of a few hundred cells is a living, thinking, feeling human being? How is that antity any different from a vegetative person who could be taken off life support? Rahter than throwing out platitudes, why not try to throw SOMETHING of substance out there? So far the only argument/rationalle you've given has been "it is because I say it is". Please tell me that I haven't been wasting my time with someone who is limited to THAT level of discussion.

Marino1983
07-16-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Ok...if we're not talking biology or spiritualy, then what's left? If you can't see that the only thing that seperates a man from a dog is self awareness and/or a soul, than I suggest that you try and educate yourself in the matters of biology, and bio-ethics. As for the right to take a HUMAN life, people do it all the time. We take people off life support, we execute criminals, we kill in self defense, and we kill in war. So there is no absolute rule against taking a human life. Heck, we even take innocent human lives in war when it serves the greater good. What you need to ask yourself, and what you've failed to address however is EXACTLY what qualifies as a "human" life. Is it a collection of cells so small that they are invisible to the naked eye? Is that ACTUALLY a human being to you? Can you HONESTLY tell me that collection of a few hundred cells is a living, thinking, feeling human being? How is that antity any different from a vegetative person who could be taken off life support? Rahter than throwing out platitudes, why not try to throw SOMETHING of substance out there? So far the only argument/rationalle you've given has been "it is because I say it is". Please tell me that I haven't been wasting my time with someone who is limited to THAT level of discussion.





LOL PhinPhan :D

Marino1983

DeDolfan
07-16-2003, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by marcusreal
I chose pro-choice too. If you don't want a baby at that point in your life or you want a one-night-stand, man do something that's barely done-WEAR A RUBBER! How hard is it to buy and use one? If you need help putting it on yourself there are depictions showing you how in some of the boxes.

exactly and that's been the point i've been driving here. Show some responsibilty. That's all.

DeDolfan
07-16-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Ok...if we're not talking biology or spiritualy, then what's left? If you can't see that the only thing that seperates a man from a dog is self awareness and/or a soul, than I suggest that you try and educate yourself in the matters of biology, and bio-ethics. As for the right to take a HUMAN life, people do it all the time. We take people off life support, we execute criminals, we kill in self defense, and we kill in war. So there is no absolute rule against taking a human life. Heck, we even take innocent human lives in war when it serves the greater good. What you need to ask yourself, and what you've failed to address however is EXACTLY what qualifies as a "human" life. Is it a collection of cells so small that they are invisible to the naked eye? Is that ACTUALLY a human being to you? Can you HONESTLY tell me that collection of a few hundred cells is a living, thinking, feeling human being? How is that antity any different from a vegetative person who could be taken off life support? Rahter than throwing out platitudes, why not try to throw SOMETHING of substance out there? So far the only argument/rationalle you've given has been "it is because I say it is". Please tell me that I haven't been wasting my time with someone who is limited to THAT level of discussion.

Whatever! You have spun a fairly simple thing around so much to nearly include everything under the sun. You apparently value human life very little and are satisfied with comparing an apple to oranges, pears and plums. Ever think about going into politics??
But apparently, i've been wasting my time tho!
Later, "dog" !!

PhinPhan1227
07-17-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Whatever! You have spun a fairly simple thing around so much to nearly include everything under the sun. You apparently value human life very little and are satisfied with comparing an apple to oranges, pears and plums. Ever think about going into politics??
But apparently, i've been wasting my time tho!
Later, "dog" !!


Well, that answers that question. Your ability to carry on a discussion/debate is limited to presenting opinion as fact, and the complete avoidance of any direct question. Congrats, you're exactly the kind of voter that Pat Robertson is looking for.

DeDolfan
07-17-2003, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



Well, that answers that question. Your ability to carry on a discussion/debate is limited to presenting opinion as fact, and the complete avoidance of any direct question. Congrats, you're exactly the kind of voter that Pat Robertson is looking for.

What "opinion" did I present as fact? As far as your questions are concerned, they didn't pertain to anything of the original topic. You had to go and bring everything else under the sun into it. i simply answered IBs original question with an explanation. Then you come along and start to tear it down with all these hypothetical comparisons that have nothing to do with anything , but yet you'd like an answer to some ridiculous questions of your own. And Pat Robertson????????????????????

:D :D :D :D :D :sleep: :sleep:

PhinPhan1227
07-18-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


What "opinion" did I present as fact? As far as your questions are concerned, they didn't pertain to anything of the original topic. You had to go and bring everything else under the sun into it. i simply answered IBs original question with an explanation. Then you come along and start to tear it down with all these hypothetical comparisons that have nothing to do with anything , but yet you'd like an answer to some ridiculous questions of your own. And Pat Robertson????????????????????

:D :D :D :D :D :sleep: :sleep:


"Abortion being murder is NOT a belief but fact. Life begins at conception so deal with it!"


The fact that you don't recognize that "abortion is murder" is an opinion is a huge part of your problem. You see the entire issue as black and white when almost the entire issue is grey.

DeDolfan
07-18-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



"Abortion being murder is NOT a belief but fact. Life begins at conception so deal with it!"


The fact that you don't recognize that "abortion is murder" is an opinion is a huge part of your problem. You see the entire issue as black and white when almost the entire issue is grey.

No, i think you have it backwards. There is nothing gray about it. you may call it whatever you want to suit your own personal agenda, but when one person willingly takes the life of another to suit their own greed and irresponsibilty, that's exactly what it is. This is a very example of something that just because it is legal, it's not always right. I don't care what stage of developement the fetus is in, once concieved, it is a human being, however small and fragile. Period. All the rest of the garbage of whether it has a soul, or could live out of the womb, yada yada yada, has not one thing to do with this. Since you like to ask alot of questiona and such, how about answering this one for me.

When does [human] life begin??

PhinstiGator
07-21-2003, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by iceblizzard69
We haven't had this question here yet, so lets get to it. Are you pro-choice or pro-life?

I am pro-choice. I think it would be a terrible thing if abortion was illegal in this country because of people's religious beliefs. I wonder what the percentage is of pro-lifers that are religious. I bet it is a lot higher than the percentage of Americans who are religious.

I tend to be for life. I suspect that I am the only one here who has actually seen an aborted fetus up close.

I think that adoption is a better option for an unwanted pregnancy. My sister was adopted into our family and I could not imagine the alternative happening to her.

Unfortunately, this issue has been made into a rights issue. And no one wants to give up a right.

But for the unborn child it is a matter of life and death. If it is not alive then it would not need to be terminated.

I have seen the choice up close and I have no choice but to reject the kind of thinking that says that this is not a living, human, defenseless, child who is worthy of our love and protection.

DeDolfan
07-21-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


I tend to be for life. I suspect that I am the only one here who has actually seen an aborted fetus up close.

I think that adoption is a better option for an unwanted pregnancy. My sister was adopted into our family and I could not imagine the alternative happening to her.

Unfortunately, this issue has been made into a rights issue. And no one wants to give up a right.

But for the unborn child it is a matter of life and death. If it is not alive then it would not need to be terminated.

I have seen the choice up close and I have no choice but to reject the kind of thinking that says that this is not a living, human, defenseless, child who is worthy of our love and protection.

actually seen an aborted fetus up close.

We'll get to this in a moment.

I really appreciate what you said about your sister and nothing could be more true. And you are correct in saying that this has been made into a "rights" issue. Maybe that judge/s who said this is ok should've been aborted and this discussion would be very moot. But the "right" to terminate another life, and we're talking human here, does not seem to be a basis for a "right". IMO anyway. And I understand exactly what you're saying that if it is "not alive it would not need to be terminated"! That is my whole point because the egg itself is not alive until "we" spread our seed upon it. At that time, it is conceived and begins to grow/form. At that point it becomes alive and if it's "unwanted" then the irresponsible ppl involved has their right to a choice accordingly to the "law" and I use that term very loosely.

reject the kind of thinking that says that this is not a living, human, defenseless, child who is worthy of our love and protection.

Now I'll put this together. OK, you've seen an aborted fetus up close and personal perhaps, i say this because if you were not one of the "involved", then you wouldn't have witnessed it. INO only and I could be wrong about it and if so I do apologize.

Wait a minute! i just reread what you said and I should edit this and rewite some things, but I won't. Simply for the reason that alot of times we read alot of things in haste and tend to "leave" out some things.

I have seen the choice up close and I have no choice but to reject the kind of thinking that says that this is not a living, human, defenseless, child who is worthy of our love and protection.

Please accept my apologies, PG, since I overlooked that one word you used.......................................reject.
One word makes another meaning at times !!

:cry:

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


No, i think you have it backwards. There is nothing gray about it. you may call it whatever you want to suit your own personal agenda, but when one person willingly takes the life of another to suit their own greed and irresponsibilty, that's exactly what it is. This is a very example of something that just because it is legal, it's not always right. I don't care what stage of developement the fetus is in, once concieved, it is a human being, however small and fragile. Period. All the rest of the garbage of whether it has a soul, or could live out of the womb, yada yada yada, has not one thing to do with this. Since you like to ask alot of questiona and such, how about answering this one for me.

When does [human] life begin??

Again, it's your OPINION that human life begins at conception. Other people do NOT share that opinion. But the fact that you don't even recognize the FACT that you're expressing an OPINION, leads me to believe that you're completely hopeless on this issue. Oh, and to answer YOUR question, I "believe"(see..opinion again, NOT fact), that human life begins when a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb.

DeDolfan
07-24-2003, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Again, it's your OPINION that human life begins at conception. Other people do NOT share that opinion. But the fact that you don't even recognize the FACT that you're expressing an OPINION, leads me to believe that you're completely hopeless on this issue. Oh, and to answer YOUR question, I "believe"(see..opinion again, NOT fact), that human life begins when a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb.

Common sense would tell you that that "glob of cells" would HAVE to be alive to develope enought to become "viable and able to survive outside the womb" in the first place! Nice try, but it just don't flush!! :lol:

mf52dolphin
07-24-2003, 03:53 PM
On this question, I lean toward pro-life. The only exceptions would be through rape and or incest and done within a week of the pregnancy through a drug(likr ru-486).
The scientific reasons I lean toward pro-life are that it is known that babies can survive at the 25 week level(39 being normal, I do have a brother born at 29 weeks(however he is an idiot)). So considering that babies are definitely alive at that point, I have not been presented with evidence that life come to being anytime between the conception and the viability point. There life begins at conception and I am pro-life.

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Common sense would tell you that that "glob of cells" would HAVE to be alive to develope enought to become "viable and able to survive outside the womb" in the first place! Nice try, but it just don't flush!! :lol:

Again, "alive" is NOT "human life". We allow euthanasia for humans who are brain dead EVERY day. They are still alive, but there is NO brain function. That glob of cells ALSO has no brain function because it has NO BRAIN. Killing something that is "alive" is NOT murder. Killing a living, breathing, THINKING human being is SOMETIMES murder. Good LORD you're myopic!!! Do you ever think before you post?

PhinPhan1227
07-24-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by mf52dolphin
On this question, I lean toward pro-life. The only exceptions would be through rape and or incest and done within a week of the pregnancy through a drug(likr ru-486).
The scientific reasons I lean toward pro-life are that it is known that babies can survive at the 25 week level(39 being normal, I do have a brother born at 29 weeks(however he is an idiot)). So considering that babies are definitely alive at that point, I have not been presented with evidence that life come to being anytime between the conception and the viability point. There life begins at conception and I am pro-life.


If you haven't been presented with any evidence that life began prior to the time that the fetus becomes viable, then how can you say that life begins at conception? Further, exactly what constitutes a human being? A person in a vegitative state is allowed to be taken off life support because there's no brain function. How is a fetus with no brain function any different?

PhinstiGator
07-24-2003, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
..."how can you say that life begins at conception? Further, exactly what constitutes a human being? A person in a vegitative state is allowed to be taken off life support because there's no brain function. How is a fetus with no brain function any different? "

It sounds like a no-brainer to me (no pun intended). Life must begin at conception. Without conception (natural or cell fusion) there can be no new created life. Therefore, in a very real sense...every unique human life can be traced back to this point of origin called conception.

In contrast, life can NOT begin at the moment of viability (as defined by surviving the birth process) because that moment is not a scientific point of origin, but would be defined as the next phase of fetal development.

By the way, fetal brain waves are discernable as early as 40 days from conception.

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


It sounds like a no-brainer to me (no pun intended). Life must begin at conception. Without conception (natural or cell fusion) there can be no new created life. Therefore, in a very real sense...every unique human life can be traced back to this point of origin called conception.

In contrast, life can NOT begin at the moment of viability (as defined by surviving the birth process) because that moment is not a scientific point of origin, but would be defined as the next phase of fetal development.

By the way, fetal brain waves are discernable as early as 40 days from conception.


But is it a distinct "life" or merely an extention of the parent at that point? Seriously think for a moment about exactly WHAT you're ascribing "human life" to. A collection of cells so small it can't even be viewed by the naked eye. Yes, it's "alive", but so is my spleen. I wouldn't want that removed either except under the most extreme circumstances, but I also wouldn't want the gov deciding that it was out of my hands. Ask yourself this question...if a fetus is a living human being from day one, why is it that if the choice is between saving the fetus' life or the mothers life during a complication, virtually any person would chose the mothers life. If a fetus is a human being, shouldn't it have JUST as many rights?

PhinstiGator
07-25-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
But is it a distinct "life" or merely an extention of the parent at that point? Seriously think for a moment about exactly WHAT you're ascribing "human life" to. A collection of cells so small it can't even be viewed by the naked eye. Yes, it's "alive", but so is my spleen.

That's easy to answer...the baby has a unique DNA chipset of instructions that is unique and separate from the mother. It has a unique fingerprint that is separate from the mother. These are standard and scientific ways to determine identity.

And of course the group of cells are very small. We are talking about the beginning of Life. Complete maturity of this tiny life will take years.

When I plant a seed in the garden, at what point does it become a LIVING tomato plant?...when the seed germinates or when I pick the first tomato?



I wouldn't want that removed either except under the most extreme circumstances, but I also wouldn't want the gov deciding that it was out of my hands.

Like I said in my initial post....this issue has unfortunitely become a rights issue. No one wants to give up a right...even if it is wrong.


Ask yourself this question...if a fetus is a living human being from day one, why is it that if the choice is between saving the fetus' life or the mothers life during a complication, virtually any person would chose the mothers life. If a fetus is a human being, shouldn't it have JUST as many rights?

Believe me, I have asked myself that question and have thought it through rather thoroughly. There should be no doubt that the fetus is alive and it is of the human species. Once it is implanted into the uterus wall it will begin the process of development.

Now, you move on to the ethical question...who is more valuable? It's the old lifeboat situation. Who do you toss out to save yourself. You have to decide who get's to live...the baby, the adult, or the old sickly person. Who has more value? If the baby is Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, or becomes a great scientist that cures cancer...now who would have more ethical value? Ethics are shaky ground. They are bent and twisted to gain self approval. The abortion question must rest more soundly on the foundation of science.

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


That's easy to answer...the baby has a unique DNA chipset of instructions that is unique and separate from the mother. It has a unique fingerprint that is separate from the mother. These are standard and scientific ways to determine identity.

And of course the group of cells are very small. We are talking about the beginning of Life. Complete maturity of this tiny life will take years.

When I plant a seed in the garden, at what point does it become a LIVING tomato plant?...when the seed germinates or when I pick the first tomato?



Like I said in my initial post....this issue has unfortunitely become a rights issue. No one wants to give up a right...even if it is wrong.



Believe me, I have asked myself that question and have thought it through rather thoroughly. There should be no doubt that the fetus is alive and it is of the human species. Once it is implanted into the uterus wall it will begin the process of development.

Now, you move on to the ethical question...who is more valuable? It's the old lifeboat situation. Who do you toss out to save yourself. You have to decide who get's to live...the baby, the adult, or the old sickly person. Who has more value? If the baby is Albert Einstein, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, or becomes a great scientist that cures cancer...now who would have more ethical value? Ethics are shaky ground. They are bent and twisted to gain self approval. The abortion question must rest more soundly on the foundation of science.

The kid has as much chance of becoming Charles MAnson as he does Albert Einstein(more actually...compare the number of death row residents to Nobel Prize winners). That aside, you still have an organism which is incapable of surving on its own. You also still have an organism with zero brain function at the stages which I feel abortion should be legal. Legaly and ethicaly you have an organizm which is no different from the person with the DNR order who has lost brain function and is living off life support. If it's ethical to end that persons "life" then it's difficult to argue against ending the life of an organism which is also without brain function, and without the ability to live on it's own. Oh, and you didn't actually answer my question. Does the mother have more rights or not? If you say "not", I hope you never become a doctor. Personally I'd kill the doctor that refused to save my wifes life. And I'm not speaking metaphorically when I say "kill" either.:fire:

DeDolfan
07-25-2003, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Again, "alive" is NOT "human life". We allow euthanasia for humans who are brain dead EVERY day. They are still alive, but there is NO brain function. That glob of cells ALSO has no brain function because it has NO BRAIN. Killing something that is "alive" is NOT murder. Killing a living, breathing, THINKING human being is SOMETIMES murder. Good LORD you're myopic!!! Do you ever think before you post?

One last time and please stop being like an idiot about this. We are talking about abortion, that's it. You keep bringing all these other scenarioes in to support your argument that have nothing whassoever to do with abortion. Plulling the plug on comatose patients is another matter entirely but you seem to think you can support your argument with it. Most of the folks you describe have lived their lives pretty much but in either case, they've at least had a chance at life. but an aborted fetus never will and it is not right for someone else to deprive it of such. You keep saying that the fetus has no brain and such does not make it "human"! that is the biggest bunch of horse hockey i've ever heard of pure and simple. And just how do you know this, Einstein? did you just ask "any biologist" or som'n? I would be willing to bet that at least a % of that "glob of cells" represents a brain and the other body parts. If not, how do you think that it developes into the brain and other parts? by osmosis? Ask any biologist. But please don't waste any more of my time copmaring apples to oranges. Just please stick to apples.
BTW, i do think before I post. You should try it sometime as well.

DeDolfan
07-25-2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



But is it a distinct "life" or merely an extention of the parent at that point? Seriously think for a moment about exactly WHAT you're ascribing "human life" to. A collection of cells so small it can't even be viewed by the naked eye. Yes, it's "alive", but so is my spleen. I wouldn't want that removed either except under the most extreme circumstances, but I also wouldn't want the gov deciding that it was out of my hands. Ask yourself this question...if a fetus is a living human being from day one, why is it that if the choice is between saving the fetus' life or the mothers life during a complication, virtually any person would chose the mothers life. If a fetus is a human being, shouldn't it have JUST as many rights?

Can't be seen by the naked eye????

That is a huge fallacy you've made there. The human egg itself CAN be seen by the naked eye. Once fertilized and cell division comences (the start of life) do you think they will miraculously shrink to microscopic size?? I don't think so!

PhinPhan1227
07-25-2003, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


One last time and please stop being like an idiot about this. We are talking about abortion, that's it. You keep bringing all these other scenarioes in to support your argument that have nothing whassoever to do with abortion. Plulling the plug on comatose patients is another matter entirely but you seem to think you can support your argument with it. Most of the folks you describe have lived their lives pretty much but in either case, they've at least had a chance at life. but an aborted fetus never will and it is not right for someone else to deprive it of such. You keep saying that the fetus has no brain and such does not make it "human"! that is the biggest bunch of horse hockey i've ever heard of pure and simple. And just how do you know this, Einstein? did you just ask "any biologist" or som'n? I would be willing to bet that at least a % of that "glob of cells" represents a brain and the other body parts. If not, how do you think that it developes into the brain and other parts? by osmosis? Ask any biologist. But please don't waste any more of my time copmaring apples to oranges. Just please stick to apples.
BTW, i do think before I post. You should try it sometime as well.

Jesus man have you ever even taken a biology class? The brain does BEGIN to develop early, but we're only talking about a few neurons. A baby's brain isn't even fully developed into something really comparable to an adults brain until somewhere around year two of it's development. The tiny collection of neurons which is just strong enough to run the developing organs is nowhere near developed enough to have the higher brain functions which seperate us from other animals. But since you couldn't care less about biology, I guess that won't matter to you either. The bottom line is that you've got some nebulous concept of human life which seems to border on the level of "it just is, so there", and nothing I can say will make any impact on you. That would be fine if you were using the religious/spiritual excuse, but this attempt at a scientific/rational reason for your opposition has been laughable at best. Oh, and as a last small effort at educating you...T-cells within the developing fetus eventually develop into neurons, limbs, and everything else which forms a human body. T-cells themselves however are capable of forming ANY body part. They are not however intrinsically representative of any PARTICULAR body part until they DEVELOP into that part. Send the right signal and a T-cell can become an ear ear bone cell just as easily as a neuron for the brain. Damn man, read a book!!

PhinstiGator
07-25-2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

The kid has as much chance of becoming Charles MAnson as he does Albert Einstein(more actually...compare the number of death row residents to Nobel Prize winners).

So, you agree that ethics can be manipulated and assigning someone an ethical value can be a dead-end game. Who is more valuable...you or your children?




That aside, you still have an organism which is incapable of surving on its own. You also still have an organism with zero brain function at the stages which I feel abortion should be legal. Legaly and ethicaly you have an organizm which is no different from the person with the DNR order who has lost brain function and is living off life support. If it's ethical to end that persons "life" then it's difficult to argue against ending the life of an organism which is also without brain function, and without the ability to live on it's own.

A new born baby is NOT capable of surviving on it's own. There is a clear difference between someone dying and someone becoming alive. In the dying example, there is a point where there is no hope for brain activity. For the unborn child, you can expect brain activity and development in the 40 day range. The heart will beat with no external help at about 3 weeks. It begins to breath fluid at about 11 weeks. The birth survival time is now down to about 19 weeks.


Oh, and you didn't actually answer my question. Does the mother have more rights or not? If you say "not", I hope you never become a doctor. Personally I'd kill the doctor that refused to save my wifes life. And I'm not speaking metaphorically when I say "kill" either.:fire:

Obviously, in your case ... the mother is more valuable than the Doctor. Ethics change with emotion and can be manipulated.

Pregnancy is not a sickness or disease. Only 3% of all abortions are done to protect the life of the mother.

Sniper
07-25-2003, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Oh, and as a last small effort at educating you...T-cells within the developing fetus eventually develop into neurons, limbs, and everything else which forms a human body. T-cells themselves however are capable of forming ANY body part. They are not however intrinsically representative of any PARTICULAR body part until they DEVELOP into that part. Send the right signal and a T-cell can become an ear ear bone cell just as easily as a neuron for the brain. Damn man, read a book!!

I believe T-cells (also known as lymphocytes) are specialized cells of the immune system. Since these cells are already differentiated (i.e. specialized), these do not have the potential to develop into "ANY body part." Only undifferentiated cells, such as stem cells, might be able to do this (with some technological coaxing). Perhaps you meant totipotent cells? If so, these are different than T-cells.

WharfRat
07-25-2003, 11:36 PM
I don't want any part of this thread.... I'm only posting here to say :wave: Sniper!!! Where ya been bro?

Marino1983
07-26-2003, 12:51 PM
Hello Snipe,, where have you been hiding man ? It's good to read ya again, drop me a PM when you get a chance ...:nana: :D

Marino1983

DeDolfan
07-26-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Jesus man have you ever even taken a biology class? The brain does BEGIN to develop early, but we're only talking about a few neurons. A baby's brain isn't even fully developed into something really comparable to an adults brain until somewhere around year two of it's development.

Yesterday, you were spewing on about how a fetus doesn't even have a brain, I explained how it does, and you concur, to a certain extent. Do you understand and posess any comprehensive skills? You obviously have no clue as to what I've been saying. And the rest of it warrants no response since it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Good Bye!!

Sniper
07-26-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by WharfRat
I don't want any part of this thread.... I'm only posting here to say :wave: Sniper!!! Where ya been bro?

Hey Wharf,

It is summer time so I usually find myself spending more time outside than on here. Lately, I've been reading more than posting. I hope your summer has been good. I'm sure you'll see me on here from time to time.

Sniper
07-26-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Marino1983
Hello Snipe,, where have you been hiding man ? It's good to read ya again, drop me a PM when you get a chance ...:nana: :D

Marino1983

Hey M83...

What's going on man? I've been around enjoying the summer and hope you have too. BTW... PM

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Yesterday, you were spewing on about how a fetus doesn't even have a brain, I explained how it does, and you concur, to a certain extent. Do you understand and posess any comprehensive skills? You obviously have no clue as to what I've been saying. And the rest of it warrants no response since it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Good Bye!!

Please tell me that you aren't this stupid...you just play an idiot on TV!! Neural cells and a brain are the same thing the way that a rubber dinghy is the same thing as the US FREAKIN Navy. A fetus does NOT in any way shape or form have a brain which is comparable to an adult human being. The higher brain functions which differentiate us from animals are just NOT present. Sheesh!

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Sniper


I believe T-cells (also known as lymphocytes) are specialized cells of the immune system. Since these cells are already differentiated (i.e. specialized), these do not have the potential to develop into "ANY body part." Only undifferentiated cells, such as stem cells, might be able to do this (with some technological coaxing). Perhaps you meant totipotent cells? If so, these are different than T-cells.

Sorry man...meant stem cells. I'm working on very little sleep as my son was born last week!!

PhinPhan1227
07-28-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


So, you agree that ethics can be manipulated and assigning someone an ethical value can be a dead-end game. Who is more valuable...you or your children?



A new born baby is NOT capable of surviving on it's own. There is a clear difference between someone dying and someone becoming alive. In the dying example, there is a point where there is no hope for brain activity. For the unborn child, you can expect brain activity and development in the 40 day range. The heart will beat with no external help at about 3 weeks. It begins to breath fluid at about 11 weeks. The birth survival time is now down to about 19 weeks.



Obviously, in your case ... the mother is more valuable than the Doctor. Ethics change with emotion and can be manipulated.

Pregnancy is not a sickness or disease. Only 3% of all abortions are done to protect the life of the mother.

A human baby is capable of surviving INDEPENDANT of it's mother. A human fetus in the first trimester is NOT. If you wanted to carry the argument to the ridiculous, the vast majority of ADULT humans are incapable of surviving on their own as few have any knowledge of hunting/farming, and would soon starve if Winn Dixie shut down. The basic paralles of an early fetus and a terminal patient are still valid. Neither has any higher brain function, and neither is capable of surviving away from their life support. As for who is more valuable, if the choice was between my wife and my unborn child, I'd choose the survival of my wife every single time. Now that my son is born, I don't even want to think about having to make that choice, but I'd still have made the same call when he was in-utero. As for which has more value, the child or the parent, you can reduce it to a biological question. Even in a society as advanced as ours, my wife has a better survival rate than our son. Therefore since she has better odds of being able to reproduce again, she has more value.

PhinstiGator
07-28-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


A human baby is capable of surviving INDEPENDANT of it's mother. A human fetus in the first trimester is NOT. If you wanted to carry the argument to the ridiculous, the vast majority of ADULT humans are incapable of surviving on their own as few have any knowledge of hunting/farming, and would soon starve if Winn Dixie shut down. The basic paralles of an early fetus and a terminal patient are still valid. Neither has any higher brain function, and neither is capable of surviving away from their life support. As for who is more valuable, if the choice was between my wife and my unborn child, I'd choose the survival of my wife every single time. Now that my son is born, I don't even want to think about having to make that choice, but I'd still have made the same call when he was in-utero. As for which has more value, the child or the parent, you can reduce it to a biological question. Even in a society as advanced as ours, my wife has a better survival rate than our son. Therefore since she has better odds of being able to reproduce again, she has more value.

I respectfully disagree with your conclusions...but it has been a good debate. I wish you and your family and long and happy life.

Take care.

DeDolfan
07-28-2003, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Please tell me that you aren't this stupid...you just play an idiot on TV!! Neural cells and a brain are the same thing the way that a rubber dinghy is the same thing as the US FREAKIN Navy. A fetus does NOT in any way shape or form have a brain which is comparable to an adult human being. The higher brain functions which differentiate us from animals are just NOT present. Sheesh!

Stupid??? Idiot???? I think you wrote the book on both of those!

For the LAST time, I don't gaive a rat's patootie about what stage this is or that. That has NOT been the topic at all on this thread. Can you ever get it thru your thich head?? Apparently not but what the debate has been was whether or not the fetus is alive or not. Not about all of your biological BS of the stages of developement and viability outside the womb, whatever. You keep going off the deep end with everything but you're being so damn radical about it all. When did I EVER say that the fetus' brain is comparable to an adult? Simple answer, i didn't. You did. Now once again, stop wasting my time. You are only trying to convince yourself.

PhinPhan1227
07-29-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Stupid??? Idiot???? I think you wrote the book on both of those!

For the LAST time, I don't gaive a rat's patootie about what stage this is or that. That has NOT been the topic at all on this thread. Can you ever get it thru your thich head?? Apparently not but what the debate has been was whether or not the fetus is alive or not. Not about all of your biological BS of the stages of developement and viability outside the womb, whatever. You keep going off the deep end with everything but you're being so damn radical about it all. When did I EVER say that the fetus' brain is comparable to an adult? Simple answer, i didn't. You did. Now once again, stop wasting my time. You are only trying to convince yourself.

Well...if the adjectives fit....What you continue to fail to realize(what a shock), is that this entire question is an issue of STAGES of development. No, a fetus does NOT have a brain, until later in its development. You can't even call it a rudimentary brain. You can say that it has neurons EVENTUALLY, but that is NOT a brain. It just shocks me that someone can be THIS ignorant of biology and what makes a human a human. It's also a little sad to see someone who's development of their debating skills apparently ended at "I know you are but what am I".

DeDolfan
07-29-2003, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Well...if the adjectives fit....What you continue to fail to realize(what a shock), is that this entire question is an issue of STAGES of development. No, a fetus does NOT have a brain, until later in its development. You can't even call it a rudimentary brain. You can say that it has neurons EVENTUALLY, but that is NOT a brain. It just shocks me that someone can be THIS ignorant of biology and what makes a human a human. It's also a little sad to see someone who's development of their debating skills apparently ended at "I know you are but what am I".

That's it! You have got to be the dumbest person I've ever come across. What you cannot realize and i am not shocked in the least is that this whole thread is about pro life or pro choice, PERIOD. The stages of developement has nothing at all to do with this. Get it? Biology has nothing to do with it either but you were hell bent on making it apart of it tho. But since you insist on bringing it in, the bottom line is a fetus is either dead or alive. Which is it? It can only be one or the other and there is no compromise here either. If it is alive it will eventually develope into a full term baby but on the other hand, if it is dead, then the mother will miscarry it ntaurally and shed it. I cannot understand why you cannot see this point. So who is the ignorant one now??

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


That's it! You have got to be the dumbest person I've ever come across. What you cannot realize and i am not shocked in the least is that this whole thread is about pro life or pro choice, PERIOD. The stages of developement has nothing at all to do with this. Get it? Biology has nothing to do with it either but you were hell bent on making it apart of it tho. But since you insist on bringing it in, the bottom line is a fetus is either dead or alive. Which is it? It can only be one or the other and there is no compromise here either. If it is alive it will eventually develope into a full term baby but on the other hand, if it is dead, then the mother will miscarry it ntaurally and shed it. I cannot understand why you cannot see this point. So who is the ignorant one now??

Lol...since you ask....you are. Biology has no bearing on the discussion? The fetus is either dead or alive? The discussion you bonehead is about the ethics of abortion. That's what pro-life/pro-choice is about...abortion of a human fetus. The question of the ETHICS of abortion comes down to EITHER biology or religion. Those are the ONLY realms in which you can reasonably discuss the issue. Either you're taking the stance that your religion believes that the human soul enters the body at conception, thus giving the fetus the same rights as an adult, OR you believe that a human fetus has all the rights of an adult human because the fetus is sufficiently human-like in it's development. Look let me AGAIN throw you a bone. If you want to admit that your religious beliefs are such that you believe that the soul enters at conception, FINE!! There's no argument against that stance. But you can't argue the REASONS why humans have rights over animals, and use those same arguments to support the rights of a fetus. Look, give me SOMETHING to work with here. I've probably put more effort into this than you deserve, but I've got an almost limitless supply of faith in my fellow man. I need to believe that somewhere in there is a mind capable of thinking out a logical argument on an issue beyond "it is because I say it is".!!!!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!!!!!!

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Lol...since you ask....you are. Biology has no bearing on the discussion? The fetus is either dead or alive? The discussion you bonehead is about the ethics of abortion. That's what pro-life/pro-choice is about...abortion of a human fetus. The question of the ETHICS of abortion comes down to EITHER biology or religion. Those are the ONLY realms in which you can reasonably discuss the issue. Either you're taking the stance that your religion believes that the human soul enters the body at conception, thus giving the fetus the same rights as an adult, OR you believe that a human fetus has all the rights of an adult human because the fetus is sufficiently human-like in it's development. Look let me AGAIN throw you a bone. If you want to admit that your religious beliefs are such that you believe that the soul enters at conception, FINE!! There's no argument against that stance. But you can't argue the REASONS why humans have rights over animals, and use those same arguments to support the rights of a fetus. Look, give me SOMETHING to work with here. I've probably put more effort into this than you deserve, but I've got an almost limitless supply of faith in my fellow man. I need to believe that somewhere in there is a mind capable of thinking out a logical argument on an issue beyond "it is because I say it is".!!!!!!! PRETTY PLEASE!!!!!!

I'm not talking religiously. I asked you a very simple question that you keep avoiding with eveything else.

Is a fetus alive or not? I don't care about the stage/s of developemnet either. A simple yes/no answer is all that's need here.

Muck
07-30-2003, 12:15 PM
I embrace a fetus' right to terminate its' mother.

I feel that if a woman wants an abortion, she could only do so after defeating her male impregnator in a fist-fight.

I want a long distance phone company I can count on.

:tongue:

Truthfully, I voted in the poll. And that's all I'm gonna say. ;)

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Muck
I embrace a fetus' right to terminate its' mother.

I feel that if a woman wants an abortion, she could only do so after defeating her male impregnator in a fist-fight.

I want a long distance phone company I can count on.

:tongue:

Truthfully, I voted in the poll. And that's all I'm gonna say. ;)


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe if she defeated him before she got impregnated, it wouldn't be necessary !!

:D :D

PhinPhan1227
07-30-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


I'm not talking religiously. I asked you a very simple question that you keep avoiding with eveything else.

Is a fetus alive or not? I don't care about the stage/s of developemnet either. A simple yes/no answer is all that's need here.

Yes, a fetus is alive....now I'll point out why that question is meaningless WITHOUT the other issues. Plenty of things are "alive". Plants, animals, body parts, brain dead people...all of these things are "alive", but they aren't accorded the same rights as an adult human being. Nothing in the law OR the bible OR any ethical system ever devised says that you can't kill ANYTHING that's alive. If they did, it'd be a short ethos, because those who follow it would die of starvation. The question that DOES have meaning here is whether a human fetus and an adult human SHOULD have the same rights. And THAT'S the discussion I'm trying to have with you.

DeDolfan
07-30-2003, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Yes, a fetus is alive....now I'll point out why that question is meaningless WITHOUT the other issues. Plenty of things are "alive". Plants, animals, body parts, brain dead people...all of these things are "alive", but they aren't accorded the same rights as an adult human being. Nothing in the law OR the bible OR any ethical system ever devised says that you can't kill ANYTHING that's alive. If they did, it'd be a short ethos, because those who follow it would die of starvation. The question that DOES have meaning here is whether a human fetus and an adult human SHOULD have the same rights. And THAT'S the discussion I'm trying to have with you.

True, but all those other things are not humans tho, no matter how much they develope.

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


True, but all those other things are not humans tho, no matter how much they develope.


A person who is brain dead isn't human? A convicted murdurer isn't human? A civilian who is in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't human? Man, you need to expand your views if you're going to argue this issue.

DeDolfan
07-31-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227



A person who is brain dead isn't human? A convicted murdurer isn't human? A civilian who is in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't human? Man, you need to expand your views if you're going to argue this issue.

Sorry! I read it quickly and re:d. Saw the animal and plants and just jumped in. Was running short on time and should've waited but didn't. my bad! :cry: :cry:

PhinPhan1227
07-31-2003, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Sorry! I read it quickly and re:d. Saw the animal and plants and just jumped in. Was running short on time and should've waited but didn't. my bad! :cry: :cry:

No prob...but do you see my point about what makes a living human?

DeDolfan
08-01-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


No prob...but do you see my point about what makes a living human?

Oh, i see you point but we just differ in where we belive life begins.

CirclingWagons
08-20-2003, 11:13 PM
When I see some of the posters on this board, I can't help but be Pro-Choice

CirclingWagons
08-20-2003, 11:15 PM
The ball-turret gunner

DeDolfan
08-21-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by CirclingWagons
When I see some of the posters on this board, I can't help but be Pro-Choice


And you point is.......................................

Dolfan02
08-21-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Yes, a fetus is alive....now I'll point out why that question is meaningless WITHOUT the other issues. Plenty of things are "alive". Plants, animals, body parts, brain dead people...all of these things are "alive", but they aren't accorded the same rights as an adult human being. Nothing in the law OR the bible OR any ethical system ever devised says that you can't kill ANYTHING that's alive. If they did, it'd be a short ethos, because those who follow it would die of starvation. The question that DOES have meaning here is whether a human fetus and an adult human SHOULD have the same rights. And THAT'S the discussion I'm trying to have with you.


Who speaks for the babies?? Who is protecting the rights of the 'Alive Fetus" as PhinPhan puts it?? Don't they have a choice??

You mean to tell me if you saw a fetus with a small head about the size of your thumb, with 2 small eyes, 2 small feet, 2 small hands, just thrown and lieing in the trash basket next to dirty toilet paper, waste, and other trash, you're not going to throw up and see its murder?!?! Life begins at Day 1, you can't just say "Well life begins in some point like Day 64 during the pregnancy development stages". How can you draw a line in the middle of it? An alive fetus DEVELOPS into a alive walking human being, it doesn't just become a human, like to say "on Tuesday the Fetus was not life, but Wednesday it is" Thats so ridiculous. It is a human being from Day 1, don't be fooled by other words scientists like to throw at you.

As for a population crisis?? You have got to be kidding me. FYI, right now in this day of time, you can put EVERYONE in the world all 9 billion people into a land size like Texas where they can not only live, but live comfortably! If you don't believe me on that stat, go look it up, its everywhere, but some people try to hide the facts.

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan



And you point is.......................................

ummm, that he's pro-choice?

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02

As for a population crisis?? You have got to be kidding me. FYI, right now in this day of time, you can put EVERYONE in the world all 9 billion people into a land size like Texas where they can not only live, but live comfortably! If you don't believe me on that stat, go look it up, its everywhere, but some people try to hide the facts.

Link?

Cuz I ain't buyin this one, look at China alone to disprove this little theory.

(oh, and try a real site, and not a pro-life site, I'm talking a site that isn't biased)

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 05:52 PM
Let us look at china shall we?

Nobody in their right mind would say that China isn't suffering from overpopulation. Anybody that says they arent is so full of it that they wont listen to anything anybody says, so this isn't for them, this is for the folks with some measure of common sence remaining.

Lets look at the average population density of this definately overcrowded nation, shall we?

121 people per km2 (lets convert that over to miles, shall we?)
thus we have 313 people per square mile.

So let us use this as a maximum comfortable population density for a large number of people (even though china has proven that it's not comfortable, but I'll give you this benefit of the doubt)

so 313 people per square mile and lets round off to 6.4 billion people shall we?

doing the math that would come out to 20,447,284 square miles.

or about 78 times the size of texas.

oh and the US Census beureu conservatively estimates that by the year 2050, world population will be over 9 billion (and thats assuming that population growth drops dramatically over the next couple of decades.

So by 2050 world population could fit uncomfortably in an area the size of about 120 texases.

That would be the number if that area was completely self sustaining, which we can all agree that it isn't, once you look at gaining necessary resouces from outside of that area we are talking about needing a staggering amount of land to actually settle this many people on.

Perhaps if you used some kind of utopian model where everybody lived in highrise apartments and needed no electricity, or food, or jobs, or anything else outside of what they could get from inside their own dark house, then yeah, you could fit everyone in Texas, otherwise... well, it's just not feasable.

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 05:56 PM
I'll also just add in that I'm not saying which side of this debate that I fall into, but I hate it when people toss out BS like that texas thing without researching the facts for themselves first and doing a common sence test.

Dolfan02
08-21-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
I'll also just add in that I'm not saying which side of this debate that I fall into, but I hate it when people toss out BS like that texas thing without researching the facts for themselves first and doing a common sence test.

Barbarian, You're a MORON, I hate to call any fins fan that, but when you specifically point me out WITHOUT DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you live me no choice, sorry.

I'll not only give you one Link but 2 different links about the world's population fitting into Texas.

http://www.humanlife.org/abor_supl/html/POPULATN.html

http://www.improb.com/teach/lessons2002/people-in-texas.html

The second link is more informational, enjoy.

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Barbarian, You're a MORON, I hate to call any fins fan that, but when you specifically point me out WITHOUT DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you live me no choice, sorry.

I'll not only give you one Link but 2 different links about the world's population fitting into Texas.

http://www.humanlife.org/abor_supl/html/POPULATN.html

http://www.improb.com/teach/lessons2002/people-in-texas.html

The second link is more informational, enjoy.


First off, nice namecalling, calling me a moron unprovoked must make you feel better, especially since your wrong.

Nice, but I have disproven that theory, sorry, and the first link was actually a pro-life site, I specically asked for unbiased sites.

as for the second link... like I said, you could fit everyone in there, but notice they make no mention of infrastructure, farmlands, or any necessities of life. You completely ignored the facts that I posted and blindly followed what you read in a site of "Improbablie Research"

Sorry, but yes, while you could cram everybody into the state, there would be no quality of life as there would be no room for farms, powerplants, transportation, grocery stores, emergency services, government facilities, courthouses, schools, water treatment plants, sewage plants, waste disposal facilities, industial sectors for building and repairing everything, or any of the other requirements for an even semi comfortable life, but thank you for proving my point about people with common sence.

You don't just assume that infrastructure ends at the walls of your home do you? Realistic numbers (such as I provided) prove that you need an area 78 times the size of Texas to house and provide for the human population of earth. and that number will grow to about 120 times the size of texas within 50 years.

This is what we find out when somebody does their own research to obtain the raw data and does their own research instead of blindly quoting some sites without looking deeper into what it is they are saying.

We could all live there as long as we don't mind starving and dehydrating in the dark without any transportation while we pray that no crime or fires occour and decide that we dont wanna school our children.

Not exactly what I would call a comforable existance.

Yes, the planet IS overpopulated, and it's getting worse all the time. It's a cold hard fact and no matter how far you stick your head into the sand to ignore it, it doesn't change that cold hard fact.

Barbarian
08-21-2003, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Barbarian, You're a MORON, I hate to call any fins fan that, but when you specifically point me out WITHOUT DOING YOUR OWN RESEARCH, you live me no choice, sorry.


Oh, and you say I didn't do my own research?

then where do you think I got all that raw data from?

I actually looked up the census beureus numbers, I cracked open one of those things called a book (an encyclopedia to be exact) and searched for a bit to find an accurate current count of Chinas population density.

I did my research, you just took a websites word for it and drew conclusions that they werent trying to make.


(Oh, and you said that there were 9 Billion people in the world, actually it's only 6.3 billion. More of your quality "research" eh?)

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2003, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Dolfan02



Who speaks for the babies?? Who is protecting the rights of the 'Alive Fetus" as PhinPhan puts it?? Don't they have a choice??

You mean to tell me if you saw a fetus with a small head about the size of your thumb, with 2 small eyes, 2 small feet, 2 small hands, just thrown and lieing in the trash basket next to dirty toilet paper, waste, and other trash, you're not going to throw up and see its murder?!?! Life begins at Day 1, you can't just say "Well life begins in some point like Day 64 during the pregnancy development stages". How can you draw a line in the middle of it? An alive fetus DEVELOPS into a alive walking human being, it doesn't just become a human, like to say "on Tuesday the Fetus was not life, but Wednesday it is" Thats so ridiculous. It is a human being from Day 1, don't be fooled by other words scientists like to throw at you.

As for a population crisis?? You have got to be kidding me. FYI, right now in this day of time, you can put EVERYONE in the world all 9 billion people into a land size like Texas where they can not only live, but live comfortably! If you don't believe me on that stat, go look it up, its everywhere, but some people try to hide the facts.

I love the "who speaks for the babies" diatribe. It's got as much thought behind it as the "life begins at day 1" diatribe. But, as per usual, it ignores the fact that America ends"life" every day, and does so legally and morally. But then again, coming from anyone ignorant enough to think that overpopulation is a factor of how much space it takes to put a house, I shouldn't be surprised. Here's an idea Sparky...take a look some time at how much land it takes to keep one adult human being fed each year. Then see how much energy it takes to keep that person warm. While you're at it, that person might need water eventually, so you'd better account for that as well. Oh, and since that water, food, and air need to be consumable, polution might be a factor as well. I know, facts are a b!tch, but maybe you could account for them once in a while. Unless of course you were counting on a little God intervention and manna raining from heaven. That might just work. Just for sh!ts and giggles, why not try actually putting a moments thought into what actually comes out of your mouth, rather than just regurgitating what your spiritual leaders have spewed out. Oh, and Spanky...links to Pro-Life sites aren't exactly the most objective. It's kind of like using NeoNazi.com to justify the Holocaust.

PhinstiGator
08-22-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227
.... Pro-Life sites aren't exactly the most objective. It's kind of like using NeoNazi.com to justify the Holocaust.

Well, that's an interesting way to argue your view of overpopulation...by bringing up the Holocaust.

Since you chose to throw mud at the messenger, I'll take it that you agree with Barbarian and the math...that you CAN fit the world population inside the state of Texas...keep in mind that no one is suggesting that would be a good thing.

A reasonable question for you...

What number of population (either total or per square mile) would be considered exceeding the invisible line of overpopulation? Or another way to ask this would simply be....How much "OVER" is the world currently populated?

Dolfan02
08-22-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian
Let us look at china shall we?

121 people per km2 (lets convert that over to miles, shall we?)
thus we have 313 people per square mile.

so 313 people per square mile and lets round off to 6.4 billion people shall we?

doing the math that would come out to 20,447,284 square miles.

or about 78 times the size of texas.


Barbarian (perfect name) do you realize what you just said with this? You just assumed that CHINA'S average population density of 121 people per km2 is the same throughout the whole world of 6.4 billion people and all its land! So the REST of your "calculations" and views are useless. If you didn't understand what I just said, let me know and I'll reword it to make it easier for you.

Don't tell me about picking up a book, I'm a graduate of a 4-year University now working on my Master's (MSMIS). In fact I'll give you some real calculations that are not falsified like yours:

Fact: Nearly 115 million people (10% of China's total pop.) live in an area of 47,000 km2. This is just 0.5 percent of the total landmass in China! Assumption: If everyone in China lived in this capacity, that means no one is living in 95 % (.5 x 10% = 5%. 100% - 5% =95) of China's land!

Facts: Fifty percent of the Chinese population (650 million) lives in an area of 778,000 km2 (300,385 sq miles), which represents only about 8.2 percent of the total land. Thats like if everyone from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and about 3 million more people live in land the size of Texas and 1/4 of Oklahoma!

According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts 1993 and the 1994 World Population Data Sheet from The Population Reference Bureau, the entire population of 5.6 billion people could be housed in the state of Texas. You call these sources biased? Or pro-life? You're trying to find excuses. I don't pick any side or call anything biased, I look into both sides of the arguement and present the facts.

In 1994 Consider these facts: The land area in Texas is some 262,000 square miles and current estimates of the world population are about 5.6 billion. By converting square miles to square feet - remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice - and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1300 (a nice 1-story house) square feet per capita (per person!). A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6500 square feet (a very large mansion or large restaurant w/ everything) of living space.

Now don't get me wrong, I DON'T think we should all live in Texas, the point is to prove how much land we have, especially land thats not being used. Think of the REST of the world's land outside of Texas (given the 1994 fact). Now think of all that land that can be used for farming, plantation, manufacturing, recreation, and other purposes. We as people like to crowd cities instead of living sporadic throughout the world, thats the problem but definitely not the myth of overpopulation.

PhinPhan... cute little remarks, jokes, and snappy comebacks but lets stick to the facts. The World Health Organization (biased?) has repeatitly announced that there is more than enough food for everyone in the world and that food resources is greater than ever in the history of the world. Our problem is HOW to get it to people who aren't close to the means of getting it. Large poor cities are not developing advanced methods of food and water distribution, we, us, you, me, need to provide for those who are in need and teach them how to feed.

I understand life ends everyday naturally, illegally, and at times legally, but we can not let human life and espcially families suffer because people like you are so negative and unhopeful of people's survival. Think of your family, do you have no faith in the longetivity of their lives? Are you worried it "costs" too much to provide. Don't you want to choose the number of kids you can have without anyone telling you otherwise? Think about those questions and think about how MUCH Land there is in the world with the facts I've given you instead of focusing in large populated areas like Hong Kong and New York that will narrow your mind to the myth of overpopulation.

PhinPhan... (you still with me) in China there is NOT voluntary abortion. Families are visited once a month at their homes to check for pregnancies. The Chinese govt. imposes age requirements for pregnancy, birth permits, mandatory use of IUDs, mandatory sterilization; crippling fines for non-compliance, imprisonment for non-compliance, destruction of homes and property for non-compliance, forced abortion and forced sterilization. Ask yourself is this right? Departed Chinese women have endlessly spoken out and confirmed that MUCH suffering, crying, and involuntary family planning, is ALL that takes place in China. Yes, I am pro-life, but not because some "spiritual leader" as you put it, said to be. But because after many years of MY OWN analysis, I find it to be humane, morally right, loving, and above all POSSIBLE for life to prosper.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Well, that's an interesting way to argue your view of overpopulation...by bringing up the Holocaust.

Since you chose to throw mud at the messenger, I'll take it that you agree with Barbarian and the math...that you CAN fit the world population inside the state of Texas...keep in mind that no one is suggesting that would be a good thing.

A reasonable question for you...

What number of population (either total or per square mile) would be considered exceeding the invisible line of overpopulation? Or another way to ask this would simply be....How much "OVER" is the world currently populated?

Depending on your sources, most scientists would already say we've exceeded that invisible line. Right now we dump millions of gallons of nitrates into our rivers and coastal waters as a result of the use of fertilizers which feed our population. Without those fertilizers our crops wouldn't be able to support the current population levels. Problem is, those nitrates have devastated fish stocks in fresh and coastal waters as well. Those fish stocks have already dwindled to dangerous levels, and they are continuing to fall. At the current rates, we're going to be in trouble quite soon. Take the Everglades and expand that worldwide, because it's already happened. The bottom line however is that you ignored my questions...how much land does a single human need to eat, drink, breathe, stay warm and eliminate waste? Take a look at THAT figure before you throw that idiotic Texas number out there. Hey, if you want a much more usefull bit of trivia...if every person that ever lived from the time that man first became "man" to roughly 200 years ago were to rise up out of the grave today...there would still be more living people than dead people walking the face of the earth. That's a whole lotta people.

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2003, 03:04 PM
Wow...if ever there was proof that stats can be manipulated to make crap...this has got to be it. Your avatar has a cowboy with an American flag. Ever been on a cattle ranch? Do you even know how much land a single steer needs to grow to adulthood? Ever been on a farm? Do you even know how much land it takes to grow enough wheat for a single loaf of bread? How about the polution involved? Do you know how many metric tons of waste a single person produces in a year? Do you know how many tons of waste is produced in GROWING those cattle and crops to feed a single person for a year? This whole argument may be the new poster child for narrow mindedness. Apparently food, water, and clean air just "happen", and waste just goes to never-never land when you flush the toilet or take out the trash. Jesus the ignorance is MINDBOGGLING You keep mentioning how many people live in such a small percentage of the land....it's downright depressing to think that you don't have a clue what the rest of that land is being used for.




Originally posted by Dolfan02


Barbarian (perfect name) do you realize what you just said with this? You just assumed that CHINA'S average population density of 121 people per km2 is the same throughout the whole world of 6.4 billion people and all its land! So the REST of your "calculations" and views are useless. If you didn't understand what I just said, let me know and I'll reword it to make it easier for you.

Don't tell me about picking up a book, I'm a graduate of a 4-year University now working on my Master's (MSMIS). In fact I'll give you some real calculations that are not falsified like yours:

Fact: Nearly 115 million people (10% of China's total pop.) live in an area of 47,000 km2. This is just 0.5 percent of the total landmass in China! Assumption: If everyone in China lived in this capacity, that means no one is living in 95 % (.5 x 10% = 5%. 100% - 5% =95) of China's land!

Facts: Fifty percent of the Chinese population lives in an area of 778,000 km2 (300,385 sq miles), which represents only about 8.2 percent of the total land. Thats like if everyone from the USA, Canada, Mexico, and 78 million more people live in land the size of Texas and 1/4 of Oklahoma!

According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts 1993 and the 1994 World Population Data Sheet from The Population Reference Bureau, the entire population of 5.6 billion people could be housed in the state of Texas. You call these sources biased? Or pro-life? You're trying to find excuses. I don't pick any side or call anything biased, I look into both sides of the arguement and present the facts.

In 1994 Consider these facts: The land area in Texas is some 262,000 square miles and current estimates of the world population are about 5.6 billion. By converting square miles to square feet - remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice - and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1300 (a nice 1-story house) square feet per capita (per person!). A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6500 square feet (a very large mansion or large restaurant w/ everything) of living space.

Now don't get me wrong, I DON'T think we should all live in Texas, the point is to prove how much land we have, especially land thats not being used. Think of the REST of the world's land outside of Texas (given the 1994 fact). Now think of all that land that can be used for farming, plantation, manufacturing, recreation, and other purposes. We as people like to crowd cities instead of living sporadic throughout the world, thats the problem but definitely not the myth of overpopulation.

PhinPhan... cute little remarks, jokes, and snappy comebacks but lets stick to the facts. The World Health Organization (biased?) has repeatitly announced that there is more than enough food for everyone in the world and that food resources is greater than ever in the history of the world. Our problem is HOW to get it to people who aren't close to the means of getting it. Large poor cities are not developing advanced methods of food and water distribution, we, us, you, me, need to provide for those who are in need and teach them how to feed.

I understand life ends everyday naturally, illegally, and at times legally, but we can not let human life and espcially families suffer because people like you are so negative and unhopeful of people's survival. Think of your family, do you have no faith in the longetivity of their lives? Are you worried it "costs" too much to provide. Don't you want to choose the number of kids you can have without anyone telling you otherwise? Think about those questions and think about how MUCH Land there is in the world with the facts I've given you instead of focusing in large populated areas like Hong Kong and New York that will narrow your mind to the myth of overpopulation.

PhinPhan... (you still with me) in China there is NOT voluntary abortion. Families are visited once a month at their homes to check for pregnancies. The Chinese govt. imposes age requirements for pregnancy, birth permits, mandatory use of IUDs, mandatory sterilization; crippling fines for non-compliance, imprisonment for non-compliance, destruction of homes and property for non-compliance, forced abortion and forced sterilization. Ask yourself is this right? Departed Chinese women have endlessly spoken out and confirmed that MUCH suffering, crying, and involuntary family planning, is ALL that takes place in China. Yes, I am pro-life, but not because some "spiritual leader" as you put it, said to be. But because after many years of MY OWN analysis, I find it to be humane, morally right, loving, and above all POSSIBLE for life to prosper.

PhinstiGator
08-22-2003, 03:35 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227


Depending on your sources, most scientists would already say we've exceeded that invisible line. Right now we dump millions of gallons of nitrates into our rivers and coastal waters as a result of the use of fertilizers which feed our population. Without those fertilizers our crops wouldn't be able to support the current population levels. Problem is, those nitrates have devastated fish stocks in fresh and coastal waters as well. Those fish stocks have already dwindled to dangerous levels, and they are continuing to fall. At the current rates, we're going to be in trouble quite soon. Take the Everglades and expand that worldwide, because it's already happened. The bottom line however is that you ignored my questions...how much land does a single human need to eat, drink, breathe, stay warm and eliminate waste? Take a look at THAT figure before you throw that idiotic Texas number out there. Hey, if you want a much more usefull bit of trivia...if every person that ever lived from the time that man first became "man" to roughly 200 years ago were to rise up out of the grave today...there would still be more living people than dead people walking the face of the earth. That's a whole lotta people.

Nice Diatribe. I already got the part where you believe we are overpopulated.

What's the number? Don't side step it this time. If you know that we ARE overpopulated...then where should the population level be?

PhinPhan1227
08-22-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Nice Diatribe. I already got the part where you believe we are overpopulated.

What's the number? Don't side step it this time. If you know that we ARE overpopulated...then where should the population level be?

I'm neither a biologist nor an ecologist, so I can't give you that number. If technology can advance and find a way to eliminate the nitrate build-ups, than it's possible that we could support some additional growth. But right now, we're already past that point because we've got fish stocks that are declining at an alarming rate. Look up the situation in the Chesapeake Bay some time if you want to scare the heck out of yourself. Either way that isn't really germaine to my point of view. I don't see abortion as being a viable means of population control, and I don't view that as an excuse for it's use. Now, better education/resources/technology for the PREVENTION of conception I'm 100% in favor of. Heck, if I had a daughter instead of a son I probably would have asked the doctor to use contraceptive implants if he would bolt a chastity belt to her hips. But unfortunately many of the same groups who are against abortion are ALSO against contraception. I love Catholics, but I HATE the Catholic Church.

Barbarian
08-22-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02


Barbarian (perfect name) do you realize what you just said with this? You just assumed that CHINA'S average population density of 121 people per km2 is the same throughout the whole world of 6.4 billion people and all its land! So the REST of your "calculations" and views are useless. If you didn't understand what I just said, let me know and I'll reword it to make it easier for you.

Ummm, no I didn't assume any of that, if that was true most likely the death rate would be insane.

I pointed out the flaw in your statement that the worlds population could comfortably live in Texas as the rediculous assumption that it was, now you try to put words into my mouth and claim that I was saying things I never said, nice, do you work for the GOP? Lying (oops, creative truthtelling) seems to be the order of the day for you here. Well, that and namecalling with the Moron comment, but hey, what should I expect.

The rest of the world does not have the same population density as China, if that were the case then the rainforests would be gone, air quality would be shot to the point where we wouldent have to worry about overpopulation because most people would be dead.

You again attack me personally and misrepresent my clearly stated post in a futile and transparent effort to counter the cold hard facts I presented. Sorry, but not many people here will have difficulty seeing through your line of BS.


Don't tell me about picking up a book, I'm a graduate of a 4-year University now working on my Master's (MSMIS). In fact I'll give you some real calculations that are not falsified like yours:

Fact: Nearly 115 million people (10% of China's total pop.) live in an area of 47,000 km2. This is just 0.5 percent of the total landmass in China! Assumption: [b]If everyone in China lived in this capacity, that means no one is living in 95 % (.5 x 10% = 5%. 100% - 5% =95) of China's land!

Fact: much of that unused land is used for farmland and necessary infrastructure, once again, you fail to look at the needs of life, I would ask that university for a refund because you didn't get your monies worth. Especially if you are actually trying to claim that China isn't overpopulated.


Facts: Fifty percent of the Chinese population (650 million) lives in an area of 778,000 km2 (300,385 sq miles), which represents only about 8.2 percent of the total land. Thats like if everyone from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and about 3 million more people live in land the size of Texas and 1/4 of Oklahoma![quote]

And like I pointed out previously, much of the rest of that usable land is taken up by farmland, irrigation and infrastucture. sorry, but your argument still doesn't hold water, and if you just looked at the most highly populated regions of China and use those numbers instead, you still require a landmass of over 26 times the size of Texas to house and provide for the current worlds population, but it is obvious (to most people anyways) that that much land still wouldent support the required infrastructure needed to support any kind of comfortable life.

[quote]According to the World Almanac and Book of Facts 1993 and the 1994 World Population Data Sheet from The Population Reference Bureau, the entire population of 5.6 billion people could be housed in the state of Texas. You call these sources biased? Or pro-life? You're trying to find excuses. I don't pick any side or call anything biased, I look into both sides of the arguement and present the facts.

I merely pointed out the flaw. Yes, they could be housed there, but nobody would be able to work there, and none of the required infrastructure (oh, and I graduted as well, degree in engineering, I look at the realities of life) would be able to fit, like I clearly pointed out, everyone would fit, but they would be starving, dehydrating, cold, and in the dark covered in filth.

If thats your idea of living comfortably then your welcome to it, but I like electricity, food, water, waste disposal, and transportation.


In 1994 Consider these facts: The land area in Texas is some 262,000 square miles and current estimates of the world population are about 5.6 billion. By converting square miles to square feet - remember to multiply by 5,280 feet per mile twice - and dividing by the world's population, one readily finds that there are more than 1300 (a nice 1-story house) square feet per capita (per person!). A family of 5 would thus occupy more than 6500 square feet (a very large mansion or large restaurant w/ everything) of living space.

that would be nice if houses could all be butted up against each other and no infrastructure would be required, however roads, lawns, walkways, parking garages, Farms, grocery stores, and all the other things I have mentioned several times over now TAKE UP SPACE.

Thus your numbers while accurate, do not take into account realistic living conditions. A reality check would have told you this instead of blindly taking their numbers at face value and not looking farther into them. For somebody with a degree your study habits seem to be lacking.

*Edited to add: you say that each family of 5 would have 6500 square feet. Well, aside from the fact that most families dont have 5 people under a roof, and thus take up more space, we'll just run with your numbers for a minute shall we? A typical 4 bedroom home (assuming mom and dad are the only ones living in the same room) runs about 2000-2100 square feet. Now that is the house itself, not including garage, drivewy, front yard, backyard, or the houses 1/2 of the street in front of the house. A typical 4 BR house that is 50' by 35' (I'll even make it a 2 story for you to further prove my point) will sit on a lot that is approximately 69'wide and 80' deep (adding the half of a common residential street makes it 95') so this home, plus a typical backyard, typical frontyard, and typical 1/2 of the street in front of it will take up 6555 square feet. So there is all that space, no lets consider that some people will live alone and take up space, and not everyone will be able to live in a 2 story house further eating up space we don't have (notice we have allready gone over the limit) and this is all homes and residential streets taking up this space, no buisnisses, no infrastructure, nothing.*


Now don't get me wrong, I DON'T think we should all live in Texas, the point is to prove how much land we have, especially land thats not being used. Think of the REST of the world's land outside of Texas (given the 1994 fact). Now think of all that land that can be used for farming, plantation, manufacturing, recreation, and other purposes. We as people like to crowd cities instead of living sporadic throughout the world, thats the problem but definitely not the myth of overpopulation.

Consider how much of that land IS being used for farming, look at the natural resouces that are being used up at an insane rate. Look at the rainforests dissapearing. There is more to life than living space, the resouces that we are using is more than the world can provide, and THAT is how we are overpopulated, it's not where we live, it's what we use, and what we use is stripping this planet. Overpopulation isn't a myth, look at what is happening to the environment, it's real, and 40 - 50 years down the line our children are going to see the effects, and THEY will be the victems.

Then we will see just how much of a "myth" overpopulation is.

PhinstiGator
08-23-2003, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by PhinPhan1227

I'm neither a biologist nor an ecologist, so I can't give you that number. If technology can advance and find a way to eliminate the nitrate build-ups, than it's possible that we could support some additional growth....

... Either way that isn't really germaine to my point of view. I don't see abortion as being a viable means of population control, and I don't view that as an excuse for it's use.

Thanks for the honest answer PhinPhan1227. I don't know what the number is either, but would be interested in hearing what the "scientists" have concluded.

I agree that population control should not be used as an excuse to promote abortion.

DeDolfan
08-23-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


ummm, that he's pro-choice?


Duuuuuh, no kidding. I was referring to the other part!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

Barbarian
08-23-2003, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan



Duuuuuh, no kidding. I was referring to the other part!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

I figured... I was just beeing a smart ***. :D :goof:

baccarat
08-23-2003, 11:45 PM
Dumbest quote ever on overpopulation.

"Once stated on 'Larry King Live' that he regretted fathering more than one child, due to his belief that the world is overpopulated."

Ted Turner



Ted Turner (http://imdb.com/Bio?Turner,%20Ted%20(I))

CirclingWagons
08-24-2003, 01:23 AM
http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/gunner/gunner.html

Barbarian
08-24-2003, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by booyeah_
Dumbest quote ever on overpopulation.

"Once stated on 'Larry King Live' that he regretted fathering more than one child, due to his belief that the world is overpopulated."

Ted Turner

http://imdb.com/Bio?Turner,%20Ted%20(I)

The link didn't work for me. :(

But it does sound like a pretty dumb quote. I'll bet it sure made whomever said it's kids feel good to hear that kind of stuff. :(

DeDolfan
08-24-2003, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Barbarian


I figured... I was just beeing a smart ***. :D :goof:


Duuuuh, dat's OK !!!!

:goof: :lol:

baccarat
08-24-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Barbarian


The link didn't work for me. :(

But it does sound like a pretty dumb quote. I'll bet it sure made whomever said it's kids feel good to hear that kind of stuff. :(


Try it now. Ted Turner, a billionaire, thinks it will make a difference whether or not he has another kid. No wonder he married Hanoi Jane. :fire:

Barbarian
08-24-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by booyeah_



Try it now. Ted Turner, a billionaire, thinks it will make a difference whether or not he has another kid. No wonder he married Hanoi Jane. :fire:

Ugh.... man, thats sad. Overpopulation is a real problem, but if he wanted to make a difference, instead of saying those kinds of things about his kids, perhaps he should spend a few of his millions towards new technology to reduce the effects of overpopulation.

Man... thats just sad. :(

PhinPhan1227
08-25-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by PhinstiGator


Thanks for the honest answer PhinPhan1227. I don't know what the number is either, but would be interested in hearing what the "scientists" have concluded.

I agree that population control should not be used as an excuse to promote abortion.


While I can't give you the exact number(I doubt anyone COULD give an exact number), I can tell you that right NOW, we're well beyond that number. The fish stocks that we consume directly AND use extensively as feed stocks for our cattle/pigs/chickens, and fertilizer, are already massively depleted. This is the problem with a lot of peoples perspective. If the first link in the chain is broken, they think everything is still fine because they can still get a pack of bacon at Winn Dixie. By the time that pack disapears it's too late to fix the problem.