who supports right to choose

[snuffy65 1]

It just makes your definition wrong.

What makes yours right? This statement makes me sad.

[gadgetlady 4]

But there are many forms of life. They aren't all necessarily babies.

Why does what we name them matter? Fetus, baby, unborn baby, newborn baby, infant, toddler, adolescent, etc. -- they're all just NAMES for the different stages of life! The problem comes when we believe that by naming them "fetus", for example, that we can then take away their rights because we define them as less than human -- which they are not.

But this is a debate that is irrelevant. Women will choose whether you believe it is within their rights or not.

But fewer of them will choose to abort if it is illegal or more difficult to do so -- and furthermore, fewer of them will choose to abort if they are educated as to what is growing within them. We don't decriminalize theft just because people are going to choose to do it anyway.

You have already decided that none of the extenuating circumstances matter at all. All that matters to you is that there is a law passed that agrees with your belief system.

You are correct. There are no extenuating circumstances that would ever convince me it is acceptable to kill an innocent human being because that human being is an inconvenience to another. And you are also incorrect; making abortion illegal is not my only concern. I also believe in providing many different types of support for women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy.

[gadgetlady 4]

But this is your belief. Not scientific fact, which is why I used the skin analogy because every scientific definition of life that supports your argument would in turn make living skin "life".

The FACTS are this. Scientifically we know and can define what "living" tissue is. however, no scientist will make the claim that they know what the phenomenon "life" is or how it is defined.

Now given the very small differences between "living" tissue and a fetus and add the number of social and ethical dilemmas of declaring life starts at conception. I think we are better off with the current court decision.

I don't mind anyone arguing differently. But please (not directed at gadget) stop making claims that a 8 week old fetus IS life and rather say its your belief. Because "life" has not been defined.

Me and other pro-choice people mostly "believe" that life doesn't start till later on. Which is why we say "we don't want to impose our beliefs on other people".

Quite frankly, I think this is a ridiculous argument -- and verbal semantics. Life doesn't happen when we "believe" it happens, and therefore at different times for different people. Life IS. If you "believe" it isn't life and act on that belief by destroying another life, you actually are imposing your beliefs on other people -- in an horrific way.

There are generally accepted biologic standards about the definition of life. I'm going to cut and paste a bit here from The Definition of Life, but there are many other sources to be found:

According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life: 1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and

complex molecular organization.

2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems

demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.

3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.

4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity

of inheritance.

5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining

nutrients from their environments.

6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.

7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.

The unborn baby meets all of these standards.

The argument is about whether this particular human life is deserving of protection, not about whether it's human, whether it's life, or whether it's human life.

[snuffy65 1]

Quite frankly, I think this is a ridiculous argument -- and verbal semantics. Life doesn't happen when we "believe" it happens, and therefore at different times for different people. Life IS. If you "believe" it isn't life and act on that belief by destroying another life, you actually are imposing your beliefs on other people -- in an horrific way.

How is knowing the definition of life ridiculous?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot its ridiculous for a court to make decisions based on scientific facts and little things called proof.

Hell, now who's the one acting like the slave driver making the slavery arguement. That black man doesn't look like the rest of us he must not be human. Let's ignore scientific evidence!

Also, thats one definition and there are may others that have different opinions. Nothings official.

And again, there are tissues that can be supported with medical help that would be defined by that definition. So back to tissue arguement with you.

[snuffy65 1]

Sorry about the slave master comment. It was unwarranted. :blushing:

[gadgetlady 4]

How is knowing the definition of life ridiculous?

Knowing the definition of life isn't. To claim that a growing baby isn't a life is. Look, I get it. Pro-abortion people believe that the unborn thing is too tiny to care about. I understand that. They believe the mother's life is more valuable and therefore the unborn thing's life is not worthy of protection. I get that. They believe the mother's life should trump the unborn thing's life. I get that. But to try to wriggle around and say something is human and it's life but it's not human life is just disingenuous -- or blind.

Hell, now who's the one acting like the slave driver making the slavery arguement. That black man doesn't look like the rest of us he must not be human. Let's ignore scientific evidence!

I'm not quite sure who you're arguing for here. "The unborn thing doesn't look like the rest of us; he must not be human! Let's ignore scientific evidence!" The evidence is IN. It's human. It's life. It's human life.

After all, what makes the Nobel Peace Prize winners who say a baby isn't alive until a month after birth wrong? Because the way you're defining it, life doesn't begin until a person "believes" it begins.

[snuffy65 1]

Knowing the definition of life isn't. To claim that a growing baby isn't a life is. Look, I get it. Pro-abortion people believe that the unborn thing is too tiny to care about. I understand that. They believe the mother's life is more valuable and therefore the unborn thing's life is not worthy of protection. I get that. They believe the mother's life should trump the unborn thing's life. I get that. But to try to wriggle around and say something is human and it's life but it's not human life is just disingenuous -- or blind.

I'm not quite sure who you're arguing for here. "The unborn thing doesn't look like the rest of us; he must not be human! Let's ignore scientific evidence!" The evidence is IN. It's human. It's life. It's human life.

After all, what makes the Nobel Peace Prize winners who say a baby isn't alive until a month after birth wrong? Because the way you're defining it, life doesn't begin until a person "believes" it begins.

All I can say is your logic for passing laws is fatally flawed and sure glad you do not have direct access to making them.

[gadgetlady 4]

Nor I, you. Because it seems to me that you arbitrarily define life as life when someone believes it's life. I haven't heard any other definition from anyone who's pro-abortion on this thread.

After all, what makes the Nobel Peace Prize winners who say a baby isn't alive until a month after birth wrong? Because the way you're defining it, life doesn't begin until a person "believes" it begins.

You do know when I'm saying this, that it's not facetious? You are aware of the learned people who actually believe this? If not, let me know and I'll give you some references.

[gadgetlady 4]

Because it seems to me that you arbitrarily define life as life when someone believes it's life. I haven't heard any other definition from anyone who's pro-abortion on this thread.

Actually, that's not true. I have heard other definitions: viability, and birth -- both of which are arbitrary. Viability changes with medical technology, and birth can happen at a difference of several months in development.

When a pregnant mother is killed and the killer is tried for 2 murders, who's the second one? When a baby is operated on in utero, who is the entity that has a problem the doctors trying to correct?

[snuffy65 1]

Knowing the definition of life isn't. To claim that a growing baby isn't a life is. Look, I get it. Pro-abortion people believe that the unborn thing is too tiny to care about. I understand that. They believe the mother's life is more valuable and therefore the unborn thing's life is not worthy of protection. I get that. They believe the mother's life should trump the unborn thing's life. I get that. But to try to wriggle around and say something is human and it's life but it's not human life is just disingenuous -- or blind.

Look I get it, pro-lifers want to press their unsupported theories on everyone. Look I get it, pro-lifers want to call what amounts to same as living tissue in a jar a separate human being. I get that pro-lifers don't want the woman to have rights to there own bodies.

See, I can also throw out irrelevant talking points to make a point. Yay, go go insensibilities!

After all, what makes the Nobel Peace Prize winners who say a baby isn't alive until a month after birth wrong? Because the way you're defining it, life doesn't begin until a person "believes" it begins.

As of right now, yes that is how I define it. Because in reality land noone knows when life starts and what constitutes as life. I don't want to pass laws on what I believe but rather what I know. And I know there is plenty of reasons to have an abortion and little other then damage to the woman to be against it.

Have a nice day in Theoryville. Hopefully your plane lands in Constitution Town soon.

[gadgetlady 4]

As of right now, yes that is how I define it. Because in reality land noone knows when life starts and what constitutes as life.

So if you define life as when one individual believes it begins, and that one individual has a right to impose his views on another individual, how can you decry infanticide, slavery, and a whole host of other human rights violations? Because all the person in power has to claim is that he "believed" the other person wasn't a human life.

I don't want to pass laws on what I believe but rather what I know. And I know there is plenty of reasons to have an abortion and little other then damage to the woman to be against it.

Damage to the mother is an issue, yes. But the "little other" thing is the taking of the "little other" life.

[gadgetlady 4]

BTW, from out here in "theoryland", a report from Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads: "Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

[MrsFlipFlops 2]

Look I get it, pro-lifers want to press their unsupported theories on everyone. Look I get it, pro-lifers want to call what amounts to same as living tissue in a jar a separate human being. I get that pro-lifers don't want the woman to have rights to there own bodies.

See, I can also throw out irrelevant talking points to make a point. Yay, go go insensibilities!

As of right now, yes that is how I define it. Because in reality land noone knows when life starts and what constitutes as life. I don't want to pass laws on what I believe but rather what I know. And I know there is plenty of reasons to have an abortion and little other then damage to the woman to be against it.

Have a nice day in Theoryville. Hopefully your plane lands in Constitution Town soon.

Although I disagree with you on the topic, I thought I'd give you props on the statement, it was really quite funny. I snorted Water on my keyboard when I read it. :blushing:

[snuffy65 1]

So if you define life as when one individual believes it begins, and that one individual has a right to impose his views on another individual, how can you decry infanticide, slavery, and a whole host of other human rights violations? Because all the person in power has to claim is that he "believed" the other person wasn't a human life.

Your right, which is why I agree with the courts decision of it being 26weeks. Of course thats not good enough for you. However you have unscientific proof and your belief system. You want a definite line drawn for people and the supreme drew one.

They came to that conclusions after hearing all the expert opinions and also thinking of the general welfare of the public. I agree with what they decided. If you want to overturn a court ruling your going to need more then what your selling.

Damage to the mother is an issue, yes. But the "little other" thing is the taking of the "little other" life.

No , you believe the little other is life. I believe the other as complications.

[gadgetlady 4]

Your right, which is why I agree with the courts decision of it being 26weeks.

Roe and Doe made abortion legal through all 9 months of pregnancy. It didn't cut it off at 26 weeks.

No , you believe the little other is life. I believe the other as complications.

You believe the thing growing in the womb is a complication? A complication of what?