When does a unique human life begin ? (Page 1)

[quote="diamondsz"]

No other creature -- whether human, animal or divine -- has the right to enslave another. If it's living in my uterus, and I want it out, it's gone.

[Sorry going to vent on this one, when I was preggo, people would not even ask, they would just touch my stomach, without my permission and for god sakes at least effin ask~!

What iffs(post wise) me is the fact that these people probably already have a life of quality and yet they continue to say that it is not right for others to have the same as them.

Vent done~!

[quote="lucy315"]

Thank you for your reply diamondsz.


you said:
"The justifications of abortions are many, some fall under Roe vs wade, which entitles a woman to a procedure offered and done by medical professionals, instead of back alley abortions. Why is it legal then?"

I was speaking to the moral justification as opposed to the legal. There is no question a person is legally justified, but that does not mean it is necessarily morally justified. Laws do not define what is moral, although in general, they seemingly aspire to be moral(for the most part). Why is it legal ? because the people with authority to establish the law of the land made it legal.


you said:
"Define a person, a human person is a unique individual, can you be unique while using someone else resources? Playing a game of following the leader, you haven�t developed your own set of unique characteristics that set you apart or you have some self-esteem issues and thats besides the point."

Sure you can be unique while utilizing or depending upon someone elses resources. My children a good example. they are completely dependent upon the resources I provide them in order to survive (ie: food, shelter, clothing, etc). Withought me providing them resources (or someone else fillign my shoes and providing it), their survivability goes WAY WAY down. But how about elderly people in a nursing home ? They are purely dependent upon the resources and care-giving of the nursing home, without which they would perish. Are we to consider that young children and the elderly should have no rights, since, after all, they are dependent upon resources that are not theirs in order to survive ?
I must apologize I do not folow the "unique characteristics that set you apart", or the self esteem issues thats beside the point" part...were you speaking to the zygote/embryo/fetus ? <scratching head> how do they have self esteem issues ? or Was this some kind of vieled personal attack ?


you said:
"Potential is a big wordin regards to children that is, I was to become a potential manager but I got laid off, it has a potential to either be neutral, positive or negative."

So by your reasoning then, my child has the potential to grow into adulthood, but potential is a big word in regards to children, and has the potential to either be neutral, positive , or negative...so should I have the right to kill my child, since, after all, potnetial to grow to adulthood could be negative ?


you said:
"So why does a woman have more rights than a fetus? Possibly because she wouldn�t be allowed to eat, drink, sleep walk much less go outside, if she had a miscarriage, she would be held for contempt in a court law, much less to say possibly even homicide. For example these products in our everyday items are dangerous to a pregnancy, caffeine, mercury, chlorine, Uva etc etc.. "


So the defense is based upon potential abuse of the system >? Or the potential to be punished for a perceived abuse of the system ? Like a seat belt law for example ? I should take certain actions to protect my child, and in this case, a seat belt which the law prescribes, but we shouldn't have a seat belt law, because I might get prosecuted for not exercising caution and obeying the law by buckling up my children ? Should I get into a car acident, and my child dies, I might get prosecuted for not obeying the law, or exercising care/caution as regards the child ? Or is that different ? I guess one could argue that they might not KNOW they had a child to buckle up, and so the analogy is invalid for that reason, but assuming you KNEW you had a child to care for, why would the analogy not apply ?





you said:
"A person with a mental disability is only stabilized by their prescription and yet all drugs (good or bad) are harmful to a pregnancy, by entitling a fetus to contain more rights would enforce slavery upon a woman. By accepting that a fetus is on the same level as a woman is incorrect, it has the potential to be the next woman, if you can look at it that way you have removed the dignity, legality, and equality of every single woman in this world. A fetus is the woman, even though it has its own unique Dna, it only survives by nutrients and oxygen provided from her body through an umbilical cord."


So are you saying that a mentally disabled person needs to have their children aborted always ? Isn't that the precise reasoning of hitlers, and why he had all the mentally ill people sexually neutered ??

Just because the fetus requires the nutrients the mother supplys does not make the fetus the woman. Science can clearly demonstrate that this is not a matter of fact or truth. If the fetus was TRULY the woman, they would be unable to differentiate between the fetus and the woman, but they can most assuredly demonstrate they are NOT the same person. survivability does not a person make. refer back to the elderly in the nursing home. Some of them have ZERO chance of survivability without nutrients and oxygen supplied by the nursing home. Should they not be considered unique persons with rights, and instead be considered the nursing homes private property ?


you said:
"A z/e/f is not unique as it is the woman or you can go to the other extreme and say it shares characteristics with a parasite."

So by your reasoning then the elderly in nursing homes requiring care are equally to be considered parasites that should be terminated if the property owner (in this case the nursing home) decides they no longer desire to provide them care ?


you said:
"So you may possibly respond with, why not give it up for adoption, please explain why the demand of parents cannot be met and why there is millions of children on a waiting list? That is not the answer though, the true though of pro-choice is the fact that wanted and unwanted pregnancies are accepted, the decision they choose to make is what we support, why should we have a right to speak for others? My question to you is should anyone who proclaims themselves pro-life, should they be responsible to foot the bills for all unwanted pregnancy/children? It would only make it responsible, don�t you think?"

But who speaks on behalf of the unique human that cannot yet speak on their own behalf ? What unique human person doesn't desire to live as opposed to die (other then someone who is mentally ill). As to the position of paying for it, I suggest that human life is worth payign for. Out of curiosity, how much more does it cost to deliver a baby as opposed to aborting it ? That would really be the only issue, since , as you stated, there are lines a mile long to adopt them. Is the difference of cost/price to much to pay for the saving of an innocent human life that cannot yet plead it's own case for life ? I suggest it isn't. I further suggest that the pro-lifers would gladly foot the bill. We shouldn't put the value of money ahead of the value of human life. Is the almighty dollar truly that important to supercede the value of a human life ?


you said:
"Responsibility can be a very hard word to understand, since it can mean both parenting and abortion, since perceptions ideally are not reality but what you make of them as a unique individual."

There is no doubt that our soceity today is havign a great amount of difficulty with responsibility. It is glaringly obvious. Accountability and responsibility are things that people seem to want to avoid like the plague these days. never-the-less, how do you arrive at the conclusion that "perceptions ideally are not reality, but what you make of them as a unique individual". To the contrary, perceptions IDEALLY are reality, and what we make of perceptions as unique individuals is often NOT reality. Sure, our personal perceptions become our own personal reality, but that however does not make it reality. I could see spiders walkign on my body all the time, and to my perception it is reality, however, it is not true reality, but ratehr a delusion of my mind. So IDEALLY, our perceptions ARE reality (whether or not its true reality, is really beside the point).
But how does any of this matter in the case of abortion , responsibility, or accountability ? I mean I could preceive I have no obligation to obey the traffic light, but the true reality is very different, even if my own percieved reality is not.


you said :
"Could you explain to me why a newborn cannot drink alcohol but a mother can? We have established that both are human but one does not have the same as the other, must it be age? Or maybe if we look deeply you can see that it is actually �judgment.� What I mean by that is a conscious, mentality and/or grasping a context of legality. Another way to look at this is what separates� us from other animals?"


While I appreciate your example, it is apples and oranges. Teh rights denied to the child (ie: alchohol) is not a permanent exclusion. The child at some point will be able to exercise his right to drink. The aborted baby , on the other hand, is excluded from the fundamental right to life. The aborted baby will NEVER have the opportunity to "age" or aquire the appropriate "judgement" that it otherwise would have enjoyed as a matter of course, if it had not been aborted.


you said:
"The problem it comes down to is that if woman are forced to carry pregnancies, men will be forced to have vasectomies, then we have no population. We are outweighing pros vs cons and right now a human being (person) outweighs human DNA."

How does vasectomies play into it ? Are you sayign if women should be prevented from being able to abort their babies, that men should be forced to receive vasectomies ? I don't follow your reasoning here. If population is your concern, shouldn't you be falling on the side of pro-life ? i mean after all, every aborted baby is one less person in the population...isn't it ? It seems your logic is skewed if you think a person should be able to have an abortion in order to keep the population growing.


you said:
"Since everyone on this planet has a unique belief or perception, law was created to be unbiased and outweigh (more so be neutral) to all parties, even though an act may be morally right or wrong, law was created to make a standard for all that benefits us without bias or opinions."

I disagree. The primary purpose of law is to establish an ordered society.How a particular society establishes law is based upon the particular outlook or views of that society (particularly the controlling power of that society). As it turns out, that resulting law which is established is a reflection upon those ideals or beleifs of that particular society(or the controlling power). So in the case of Islamic nations, they have sharria law. In that instance, there is no consideration for being "neutral" to all parties, and the law is entirely based upon religious morals. Furthermore, in the case of the united states, it was founded upon and devloped as a direct result of christian ideals and the belief in a creator God. (ie: we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, etc.) It just so happens we have moved from our roots as a christian nation to blatently attempting to rewrite history in order to erase those christian roots, and over the course of time we have become secularized to a very great degree. As result, while there are many laws in the U.S. that are morally founded and rooted, there has been a shift to move away from that base line.


you said:
"In the end here are the reasons why abortion is right....

It is done to protect woman from Health problems,...."


If the womans life or health is at risk, it should be her decision to choose abortion or not.

" discrimination, opression and slavery"


How does abortion prevent discrimination ? oppression ? slavery ? I guess one argues oppression/slavery in that they don't want to have a child that they are now carrying, but isn't that an issue of personal responsibility and accountability ? I mean one would not be having that issue if one simply exercised caution or restraint. The way I see it, sexual interaction requires a certain amount of maturity and understanding, and by extension personal responsibility and accountability. If I made a bad decision about takign out a loan i couldn't afford, who is goign to say I should be able to tear up the loan documents because of an irresponsible decision I made ? How much more shoudl the loan be enforced as regards the death of a unique human life ? Oh, wait..I see it now.. its the almighty dollar superceding the value of human life again. I wonder if there is any almighty dollars to be made on the tissues and parts of the aborted babies ? Do you think so ?



you said:
"It provides woman with Equality, resources, sense of being, the option to be a parent, provides quality health care, respect, dignity, empathy, compassion and the best of all choices. "

You can't be serious. Equality to who ? resources... you mean nutrients ? and those can't be resupplied ? sense of being ?? how does killing your baby provide you a sense of being ? beign what ..a destroyer of human life ? the option to be a parent has ALWAYS been there, you should have said the option to NOT be a parent even though you acted irresponsibily and put yourself in the position where you ARE a parent and now want to shirk the responsibilty by causing the death of your own child. Since when does having an abortion provide respect ? and from whom ? dignity ? dignity to whom and in what manner ? empathy...empathy for the unborn ? or exlusively for the mother alone ? compassion for whom ? the mother alone at teh expense of the unborn child ? the best of all choices should have been handled responsibly to begin with. The choice for abortion is a direct result of irresponsibility and personal selfishness at the cost of human life in the VAST majority of cases.

you said
"Whether that be a choice to work, a choice to go to school, a choice to date whom I please and a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person I love."

whther or not you can or can't have an abortion should not in any way affect your ability to work (the law requires paid leave), a choice to go to school (pregnant women go to school all the time), a choice to date whom you please (pregnant women can date whomever they please), a choice without repercussions to have sex with the person you love (you can have sex with the person you love in a responsible manner (and in a variety of ways)that pretty much excludes any possibility of getting pregnant, and if you truly loved the person, why would you want to kill the unified flesh of the two of you...the direct product of the love you expressed ? Seems a bit uncaring, and lacking in love, compassion, and empathy to me, with a totally selfish and self serving agenda with no consideration of the unborn baby in the least (who is seemingly viewed as a parasite or some such thing).

you said:
"In the end the difference between pro-life/pro-choice is the same difference to quantity and quality.

Pro-choice kills human dna
Pro-life kills human beings mentally "

Are you saying that more humans are less quality humans ? How is that even rational ? And comon now, how many pro-chpice women are walking around out there that have been KILLED MENTALLY by the process of destroying their own child ? Are you kidding me ?

Your statement SHOULD have been

pro-choice kills human dna and kills human beings mentally as well.
pro-life kills human beings mentally who were not capable of, or mature enough, to exercise their sexual escapades in a responisble manner and actually be able to be both responsible and accountable to their own actions. Sure, raising children is tough, I should know since I have three of them. If a person is destroyed mentally by the task of child rearing, then they frankly were mentally unstable to begin with.

Thank you for your reply diamndsz.


-----------------
You said:
Morals only exist as a person who choose to believe in them
-----------------

I see. So people should be free to do what they want, when they want. There is truly no right or wrong, only what we want or desire on a personal level. Yet you are IN FACT arguing pro-choice is RIGHT. It is the height of hypocrisy to claim there is nothign moral, and then try to claim your position on ANYTHING is somehow RIGHT. If there is no moral issues, then it is IMPOSSIBLE it is right or wrong, by the very definition of what is right, which is derived from what is RIGHTEOUS, which is derived from the morality supplied by God through various assorted belief systems.


the definition of RIGHT as supplied by merriam webster dictionary:

1: righteous , upright
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>
4: suitable , appropriate <the right man for the job>
5: straight
6: genuine , real
7 a: of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located b: located nearer to the right hand than to the left c: located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1): located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2): located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river> e: done with the right hand
8: having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object <made sure the socks were right side out>
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11 a: being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b: being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12: most favorable or desired : preferable ; also : socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics
synonyms see correct


Now I would have to believe the usage of the word "right" on your part must be applied from definition 2, but what is "just, good, or proper" is once again derived from a moral perspective. I suppose you could have meant right as in the definition 12, "most favorable or desired", but then that is a matter of pure personal perspective, and what is RIGHT is purely speculative to the individual entirely, which reinforces my statement that there is truly no right or wrong if there is no moral issues, and thus your position that you are "right", is purely a matter of personal conjecture with no foundation upon anythign else. I mean why should we think a woman has a right at all, or a man for that matter. If there is nothign moral, then there is nothign right or wrong...REGARDLESS of what the laws may be at any particular time. In other words, just because a law is a law, doesn't make it right or wrong, because right or wrong doesn't truly exist if there is no existance of morals. ie: we could choose to euthnize all adults above the age of 50, and there should be no whining from you that it's wrong, or immoral if you truly believe what you said. I mean of course you could whine about it, but it is just your own personal conjecture and has no foundation or basis in truth or reality if what you said is actually true.

-----------------
you said:
The difference is I can go to the bar and leave my children with a sitter, someone else can feed them, someone else can watch them, biology is irrelevant.
-----------------

So if a woman could leave her fetus or embryo or unborn child with a sitter for a time, you would then be arguing for pro-life ? I somehow don't think you would, but maybe I am mistaken in that perception.


-----------------
you said:
not only would that be illegal but that "born" child has already been able to learn, can grasp critical thinking, has a concsious and can feel.
-----------------
Well it might be illegal, but very obviously there is nothign wrong with it, since there is no morality according to you and your apparently esteemed mentor the infamous dawkins. The fact that they can grab critical thinking, or can learn, or have a consciousness is entirely irrelvent. Since there is no morals, there is no legitimate reason it can be considered wrong. The fact it is against the law only serves to demonstrate that people are being repressed by an archaic system of law and are thus enslaved to the narrow minded ideals of some self proclaimed righteous "know it all" who had morals at some point in time and has enforced beliefs upon the rest of us at the expnse of personal rights to do as we want, when we want. After all, there is nothign immoral about sticking your neighbor into a wood chipper, so why make a law against it or enforce it ?



re: mentally ill pregnancys
you said:
-----------------
Are you saying that they should stop taking their pills so they throw themselves off a bridge?
-----------------

I believe I had stated that I thought they should have a right to choose in situations where the life or health of the woman was at risk. It isn't that I don't care about the unborn in such an instance..I do..but I ALSO have compassion and empathy for the mother.



re: fetus and woman are one;
you said:
-----------------
How can they not be the same person? By the law the woman is the only person in a pregnancy, I like your semantics.
-----------------

Actually your statement is incorrect, at least here in the U.S. there was a case a year back where a pregnant woman was murdered. The court recognized indeed that the unborn child was a distinct person with rights, and the man was charged with murder of the unborn person as result. It was in HARRIS CO., Texas, November 27, 2008 where a Texas appellate court upheld its ruling that affirms the personhood of an unborn child who was murdered along with its mother.


re: the elderly in nursing homes having rights;
you said:
-----------------
Any nursing can refuse patients, its based on a pay system you pay we provide or maybe the concept of reciprocity to make it sound sugar coated.
-----------------
So then, lets say they had a wealthy client but needed to empty a bed in order to make more money. They should be perfectly within their bounds to kill the poor elderly person in order to receive the recpiricol payign relationship with the wealthy elderly individual ? Its all about payign and providing apparently, and surely you won't argue it is immoral or "wrong" to do it.



-----------------
I said:
But who speaks on behalf of the unique human that cannot yet speak on their own behalf ? What unique human person doesn't desire to live as opposed to die (other then someone who is mentally ill).

you replied:
So you have a right to impose your belief but call it speaking for others, disgracful.
-----------------

What belief are we talkign about here ? The belief that a human being who is not mentally ill desires to live ? You contest that ? Or the belief that somone should speak on behalf of the human life that cannot yet speak on it's own behalf (and simply as result of short span of time). It is disgraceful in what manner ?

Let me ask you somthing, if you took a poll of everyone alive today, do you think ANY of them (excluding the mentally ill) would have preferred to have been aborted ? I daresay I think you would be hard pressed to come out with a poll that supports the idea they wouldn't speak on their own behalf if they would have been given the opportunity. I would personally think the results of such a poll should be leaving ONE of us feeling pretty disgraced, I would bet my life on it. (that is, if I were a betting man)

I likewise find it highly hypocritical of you to preach to me about "imposing my beliefs" upon others, and yet you yourself want to impose your belief upon the unborn child. The ramifications of your belief account to over 600,000+ LATE TERM abortions in the USA ALONE since 1972(that averages out to about 45 late term abortions per day), while the ramifications of my belief impose a SIGNIFICANTLY LESS cost in human lives by comparison THOUSANDS less per year. And yet you think you actually have some sort of high ground here ? Laughable indeed. Of course, I can't forget that you believe morality is a figment of our imagination, so I shouldn't expect the idea of lives lost to affect you in any way in this regard, but perhaps it will open the eyes of others who do have some sense of moral decency.



-----------------
I said:
As to the position of paying for it, I suggest that human life is worth payign for. Out of curiosity, how much more does it cost to deliver a baby as opposed to aborting it ? That would really be the only issue, since , as you stated, there are lines a mile long to adopt them. Is the difference of cost/price to much to pay for the saving of an innocent human life that cannot yet plead it's own case for life ?

you replied:
Question how would one rather die, a life with regrets or a life of happiness? What is worse physically or emotional abuse, they both the same, so how can you make physical abuse seem worse?
-----------------

Why do you assume the woman carrying out the pregnancy would have a lifetime of regrets ? How do you KNOW that ? You couldn't possibly know that. It is PURE assumption on your part, IF, that is the point you are driving home. While physical and emotional abust might be considered the same (I am not arguing that point), the resultant physical abuse in the scenario of abortion results in DEATH. Death is worse then emotional or physical abuse from where I am standing.


-----------------
you said:
Playing of words
"Perception is all there is, as there is no reality." Tom peters
so because abortion is wrong to you, it has to be wrong, when I look at history, it has always been available or sometimes even forced, although you may not agree. So what is right a quality or quantity of life? Resbonsibility would be having children when you are financially, physically and emotionally stable, otherwise you are not providing that child with what it could have!

I could have seen god last week, well he told me to tell everyone who follow him to jump off a bridge, are you jumping off a bridge? why not?
-----------------


Tom's quote is absurd, because perception IS NOT all there is. Logically speaking, truth is required for perception to even exist. If there is no truth, it is impossible to have a perception, and Whther or not a perception is true is a different matter entirely. If you want to peel it all back, the ONLY thing we can be ABSOLUTELY certain exists, is truth. Evrythign else that exists (or does not exist) is COMPLETELY depndent upon (or requires truth). This includes perception (which, by the way, can be extremely flawed and have no foundation in truth at all).

If somthing is true, truth exists. If nothign is true, truth still exists. Therefore whther or not somthing or nothing is true, truth exists. Furthermore, absolute truth absolutely exists. To argue that there is no absolute truth is absurd, because if the statement was true, it would, in itself, be an absolute truth, and thus, by default absolute truth MUST exist. It is logically impossible it doesn't exist.

Thus what Tom SHOULD have said was;
"Everythign depends upon truth to exist or not exist, and we rely heavily upon perception in an attempt to establish what those truths actually are."

In any event, yes we each have our own perceptions of the matter regarding abortion, but somewhere out there is the truth. My percpetions causes me to believe one way, and yours another. yet how can you argue a right at all, given your position that there is no morality ? If there truly is no morality, then there truly is no right or wrong either and in regard to ANYTHING.

Yes, it would be responsible to wait until an appropriate time to have a child, but if irresponsibility already occurred, or even an accident, then the time is now, I don;t think a person can justify killing their child under the guise of " it;s just not the right time now". that is irresponsible in my view, and morally repugnant to me.

As regards your questions relating to God speaking to you; I would attempt to establish the truth of the matter by utilizing logic, reason, and human perception, and then make a decision regarding your believability I suppose.


-----------------
I wrote:
While I appreciate your example, it is apples and oranges. Teh rights denied to the child (ie: alchohol) is not a permanent exclusion. The child at some point will be able to exercise his right to drink. The aborted baby , on the other hand, is excluded from the fundamental right to life. The aborted baby will NEVER have the opportunity to "age" or aquire the appropriate "judgement" that it otherwise would have enjoyed as a matter of course, if it had not been aborted.

you replied:
Not once during this paragraph has the mother been taken into conclusion, I guess it suck to be her for being a human being and not having the right to excercize the exact same things you do on a daily basis.
-----------------

I was addressing the issue of the unborn child being excluded the opportunities everyone else is afforded. As to the same rights I share..I am sorry, but I have no right to kill my children (unborn or otherwise) that I can exercise on ANY basis or at ANY time.




-----------------
I said:
How does vasectomies play into it ? Are you sayign if women should be prevented from being able to abort their babies, that men should be forced to receive vasectomies ? I don't follow your reasoning here.


you replied:
Population is irrelevant because we know in first world countries there is always space but they are over populated in Primitive/third world countries. I think that if I should be forced to carry a pregnancy, that men should not have the right to make one pregnant, therefore by obtaining a vasectomy. It also will provide a solution or put an end to abortion.
-----------------

So your reasoning is that if you have to do what you are naturally and biologically designed to do (and which resulted from your own actions) that all men should subsequently have to undergo a completely unnatural procedure as a direct conseuqence of your sexual activity ? and which would result in the extinction of the human species as you say ? hehe. That is just pure vindictive genius ! I bet you were smiling too ! LOL Why not just make them all eunichs ? Not that I condone it, but wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to ensure your partner was "fixed" or get yourself "fixed" if you have no interest in creatng a human life ? After all, the procedure CAN be reversed, and at the same time we can ensure the the survival of the human species ? An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..isn't that how it goes ?


-----------------
I said:
I disagree. The primary purpose of law is to establish an ordered society.How a particular society establishes law is based upon the particular outlook or views of that society (particularly the controlling power of that society).

you replied:
Coming from a law background, law is to provide an equal unbiased standard unfortunatly it can go to both extremes, explain to me why a picture of a scale was used to describe law?
-----------------

Ideally, your statement would be true, but that is really only a westerners perspective of the matter. Not that all individuals don't desire equitable justice, they do (individually speaking), but there are lots of people out there that don't want equitable justice for others, and for various reasons. As far as I understand it the scales date back to antiquity, specifically, it arrives via the romans.




-----------------
you said:
You mean you destroy human life as well but because its not physical its okay to bully people into believeing your concept is the only right one, wait were you talking to god again? I'm talking about equality between a man and a woman, men do not have to partake in a pregnancy at their own dispense, therefore why should woman be forced through it. If i start calling myself a man tommorrow, will it be okay for me to abort then?
-----------------

So what you are saying outside one side of your mouth is: All people should have equality etc, and yet out the other side of your mouth; they shouldn't have the right to express themselves or their reasonings if they don't agree with yours.

How is it that I destroy human life exactly ? By expressing a view opposed to yours ? And by expressing my view, I am a bully, but you are not a bully for expressing yours in opposition to those who do not believe your concept is the right one ?? Do you think only God loving/fearing people actually disagree with you ? Because I personally know a plethora of people who don't believe in God and don't believe in the right to choose either.

So your equality is about equality between a man and a woman, but the simple truth is man cannot bear children, so it will NEVER be equal in that regard, no matter how much you might desire it to be so. It sounds to me like you wish you were a man or somthing. I am sorry you were born a woman if it makes you feel any better, but even if I was the one who had to bear children, I do not believe my position would change, because I would not put myself and my own personal desires above the life of my unborn child. As a matter of fact, I doubt I would have an abortion EVEN IF my life might be at risk, because as a father, I would GIVE UP my life for my children. How much more I would have to believe I would feel that way if I had the child right there inside of me, moving every single day. I would have to believe I would be that much more instinctively bonded to them, as nature seems to do for almost every kind of mother out there on planet earth in the animal kingdom.

Look, I know it's no picnic being pregnant, I went through it three times with my wife. I understand that it's difficult, but look at the inverse. For an example, my wifes friend had four abortions when she was in high school, later, when she got married and finally decided to have children, she had damaged and scarred her uterus so much that she could no longer conceive a child. Teh man divorced her, and she ended up in a mental ward. How did abortions give her dignity ? How did abortions and the right to choose not completely destroy her life (as well as the four unborn chldren) ?



-----------------
you said:
since when does Bigotry require respect?????
-----------------
Are you suggesting you deserve no respect for the bigotry you exhibited not only towards believers in God, but also anyone who professes a creed or belief opposed to your own ?
It seems to me you have no tolerance for anyone who believes somthign different then you, and a fierce desire to squelch their voice or personally attack them. Am I wrong ?


-----------------
you said:
I have empathy for the unborn and the mother but I also respect she is person for whom it affect mosts, do you have empathy for a woman?
-----------------

How can you state that she is the person it affects most when the unborn child DIES as a result ? I daresay I think death is a bit more serious of an effect..but we seem to disagree on that point. Sure I have empathy for the woman, but my empathy for the woman does not superecede the life of the unborn child in most circumstances.


-----------------
you said:

A conversation between Socrates and Diotima(philosophy) Man only wants what he cannot obtain and by that he wants immortality, since power can be obtained. Immortality can only be sought by regeneration. Pretty selfish reason to me, everyone in this world is selfish for their own self-interest, a good read would be the selfish gene (Richard Dawkins.) Basically, if you are selfish for having children and I am selfish for having an abortion, who is right if we are both wrong to begin with, if it is done both with the intent of self-interest.
-----------------

You are saying that men seek immortality ? If that is true it is selfish. Is this why you think people choose to serve God ? Because of their own selfish desire for regeneration to immortality ? I mean, sure, some people probably even professs it, but that isn't why everybody serves God, even if it is why alot of people might. By and large we are indeed motivated by selfish desires to a great extent. I doubt any of us could say we havn't been selfish at various points in our lives, and will be selfish at various points in our lives in the future as well, but should selfish motivation become justificiation for destroying a human life ? I know I use hard examples, and a case in point Hitler massacered alot of people for selfish motivation, but we didn't think that was right. I posit that if we cannot be certain who is actually right do to the maskign of the truth by selfish motivations, then we should play it safe and error on the side of life.




-----------------
LampOflight wrote:

whther or not you can or can't have an abortion should not in any way affect your ability to work (the law requires paid leave), a choice to go to school (pregnant women go to school all the time).


you replied:
Nope actually there is small print here, that you don't know about, the law requires that they do not discriminate against you for the pregnancy but if you miss work due to complications, even with necessary medical documentation, they can let you go, based on requirements/business needs.
-----------------

I wasn't aware of that. This is in the U.S.A or another country ? Does it vary from state to state ?




-----------------
you said:

So now I must define a whole definition of sex because you say so? I say you must be held accountable and responsible for your ways of bigotry, therefore lock you in a cage,throw away the key and let you breed all you want like animals you are.
-----------------

You don't have to define sex for me, and I don't recall asking you to. It seems you want to label me a bigot, and yet ironically you seemingly have a complete and total intolerance for any view which opposes your own. An opposing view does not a bigot make, it hinges upon the INTOLERANCE. The bottom line is, I would gladly be locked up in a cage and have my babies where I will show them love and compassion, as opposed to grinding them up in a medical blender and tossing them into a garbage can labeled hazardous waste. If that makes me the animal, and you the higher life form...I choose to be an animal every single time.







-----------------
LampOflight wrote:

Sure, raising children is tough, I should know since I have three of them. If a person is destroyed mentally by the task of child rearing, then they frankly were mentally unstable to begin with.


you replied:
So woman are mentally unstable if they cannot cope with the task of child rearing, so only woman are capable of child rearing, "Do I hear sexism?"

So a woman choose to go to school and leave her children with their father, such as myself and I am unstable because some little shyte who I work my ass of so they can have the right to freedom of speech says Im mentally unstable,

By go I'm French but pardon my English for a moment "FU8888888 U"
-----------------

Who said only women are capable of child rearing ? Please don't put words into my mouth. I said person. YOU said woman, and it was YOU who implied some women couldn't do it. I commented if a person couldn't do it then they weren't all that stable to begin with. You hear sexism because YOU WANT TO HEAR IT. I suppose so you can attempt to demonize me further (you know..the whole I should be locked in a cage liek the animal I am thing).
In any event, parenting is a job for both parents (where there is two anyways). personally, I have done every bit as much as my wife, if not more, in every aspect of raising our children from bottles/cooking/diapers/baths/dressing/sch ool/doctors/playing/whatever, with the exception of the biological reality that I couldn't deliver them through my ....well... you know.

And really, you should skip the "french". I used to speak it fluently back in the day, but came to realize it only undermined my position and brought me to a lower level.

I hope you have a wonderful day !! Seriously

Ahhh.. I see you edited your post to remove the french. Good on you It was the right thing to do. I know these topics are emotional.

hmm... when I posted I got as warnign saying there was objectionable material in my post. I re-read it, but couldn't find it, so maybe I will get banned, I don't know.

Anyways, thanks all for your responses. I engaged with diamondsz first, so I sort of wanted to finish it. I am not ignoring the other posts, but only have so much time and energy. I apologize.