Are you on drugs? If anyone appealed to emotion, it was you. Clearly. Your whole bit about kids with AIDS whose mothers have died is an appeal to emotion. I appealed to common sense. And there was no ad hominem attack. I attacked your arguments, saying they were lame - and they are/were. Nothing against you, but you don't know how to argue a point at all. I am completely against abortion, but I could argue the pro-choice argument better than that.

rosewin anyone can disagree all they want and have any opinion all they want that is not the issue but you do not get to tell me how I ccan or can not frame my argument because it makes you uncomfortable.....

its a very fair and valid question ...


the point in any argument is to get an idea on what the posit is.........

so far its seems to be more about telling another what they can do then anything else....

but I havent concluded because i am still gathering data....


I stated earlier a good way to change things is to support the ideas that reduce the need to get an abortion in the first place....by being proactive and using ones life towards practical solutions not pretending its a walk in the park having a child or too bad if someone is a victum of rape or too bad what their circumstances are..........how about all the kids that are not wanted now today .........


how effective is ones caring if its not accompanied by any kind of action or even well looked at....?????

i see you have no counter, so at this point to avoid a circular argument , wasting time and space i am obliged to call an impasse ...

all the best too you...

Well, when one of your strongest arguments is jumbled in the middle of a paragraph, it's not really what I would consider being clear and concise. Just saying.



A bit of advice: Try addressing MY arguments rather than the arugments of the entire pro-life crowd. I have no problem with contraceptives.



A lame argument I've heard numerous times. The population in America is crawling, not booming. Secondly, countries that have outlawed abortion and have a soaring birth rate are countries that do not have sufficient access to contraceptives. They don't have access to proper education, as well. War, disease, and famine controls the population, so should we condone these? And nothing in your argument is logical - it's actually quite silly.



By you logic I can deduce that, before long, we will force women to have abortions. Begin igniting nursing homes and school houses. I mean, we must control the population!!!



False dichotomy. (Go look it up).



Well, science defines life as I do. There is no doubt that a zygote is human life in an early form. And your second half is a straw man argument. You are distorting my position by saying that I'm O.K. with the killing of animals. You really need to take a class in effective arguing.



Did you know fetuses suck their thumbs?

So, is that the definition of a non-sentient being? And again, I see you, along with Sheri or whatever, embrace the value of exterminating the infirm. You and Hitler would have gotten along just peachy, I surmise.



It makes it perfectly logical. You say that I do not have the right to force my morals on the rest of society, yet everyone forces some of their own morals on the rest of society. Which is why I brought up the argument of NAMBLA. Pity you didn't understand that. And your little biology lesson is entirely false. At 6 weeks, the babies brain waves show up on a electroencephalogram. At four months, the baby can hear and is soothed by certain sounds, especially soft music. So, what do you call that? A non-sentient being? And why is it, if the central nervous system does not function until 28 weeks, can a 20 week old child survive outside the womb? Unreal how terrible your argument is.

And I suspect you are O.K. with pulling the plug on comatose people.



Yeah, because killing someone or thing is a great way to show them you care. And please don't bring your superstitious, unfounded beliefs into this discussion. I didn't bring religion in to it, like most pro-lifers. So please don't start spouting off about spirits and souls. That is a discussion you can have with Omanka, not me.



Yeah, well, that's your schools fault.



Lame argument that shows a fundamental ignorance about just how many people are trying to adopt children.

I had a counter to your emotional appeals. You just don't know how to respond to it, so you put up this smoke screen that anyone can see through. You distort my position, you appeal to emotions, then claim victory. LOL. Unreal.

I don't believe it was jumbled, nor was it my strongest argument.



I'm not just addressing your arguments because you aren't the only one that I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the pro-life crowd in general



Actually, its entirely logical. I guess you missed the part where I said "due to today's medical science, a greater number of us reach adulthood". Disease IS a form of population control. As are natural predators and a lot of other things. I'm sorry you missed that biology lesson.



Not really. We need to take steps to prevent MORE overpopulation. You're making a weird argument where there was none.



I have no clue how you view it as such. Perhaps you should go look up the word?



And no. . .science doesn't define life as you do. If it did, then there would be no debate on abortion to begin with. I didn't distort your view. YOU distorted mine. I asked you a question. I said, if you DID see it as being wrong, then what do you do to prevent it? Do you go and give those that kill them the same speeches you give pro life people? THAT was the point of that statement.




And are you aware WHEN they begin doing that? Again, you ignore a whole part of my arguement.



Actually I find it unreal how terrible yours is. . . I thought I posted this on that post, but apparently not. . .during the first trimester brain wave development is not enough to argue sentience. The "cannot feel pain until 28 weeks" is a scientific arguement. Go look it up. . .I believe I posted a link on a previous post, but if not, here's the information for you. . . .While pain receptors develop at around 8 weeks, the necessary nerve pathways are not developed enough for a fetus to feel pain until at least 28 weeks. My arguement sure is terrible! Based on facts! Shame on me. . .link Please don't argue biology with me, I've had quite alot of schooling in that subject. . .


And I suspect you are O.K. with pulling the plug on comatose people.
Actually, yes. I would never want to be kept alive if I had been in a coma for an unreasonable amount of time. And I have actually experienced very closely "the pulling of the plug". One of my friends went into a coma and it was decided that she should be taken off life support. Am I angry at that decision? Of course not. It was what she would of wanted (yeah, we talked about that kind of thing).


That was directed at omnaka, don't think that everything is directed at you because it really isn't.


I stated that was for PA, not for you


What about fostering children? They were included as well. Do you know how many children are in foster care? Or are bounced around the system? I said what I did because I wanted to make the point "Instead of worrying about unborn children, worry more about the ones that are already here". There are alot of them and alot of them need help. Lets not add more unwanted children to the list. I'm very familiar with the adoption system. Are you aware how many children DON'T get adopted right off? How many years they have to spend in that system? Its not very pretty.

Why not stop trying to make me out to be an undeducated ****? Can people with different viewpoints not possibly be just as intelligent if not more so than you?

It was jumbled, and it was the strongest argument in that particular paragraph.





So don't quote me if you aren't speaking to me.





It was a stupid argument. You were implying that we need to continue abortions as a means of population control. I merely asked if you think war, disease, and famine are acceptable, too. Also, you don't seem to understand that countries where abortions are outlawed are the ones that contribute the most to the worlds population (with the exception of China). Furthermore, those same countries don't have access to contraceptives, which control population far better than abortion - and a much more humane and decent way of doing so. Sorry you missed that.




You jabber on about how humans need to become their own population control. Not only are you implying that we should start killing people, but your implying that there is an overpopulation problem. There really isn't that big of a population problem, not if we start getting the necessary education and contraceptives to those countries.




It's not a word, it's two words. Secondly, when you say that the pro-life position is either: 1). Tell women to be abstinent; or 2). Tell women to be breeding machines, you are leaving out an infinite number of possible solutions. So, it is a false dichotomy in that respect. It is also a straw man because you are distorting the position of others. So, again, perhaps you should form a better argument; one not reliant on the readers stupidity.



Yes, science does define life as I do. A zygote is the earliest form of human life. The debate, however, is whether or not to give that form of human life rights. If a zygote in a female homosapien is not a form of human life, is it a form of squirrel life? Alien life? What kinda life would you say it is? And bringing up animals in a pound shows desperation. We aren't talking about animals in a pound or my feelings regarding them. We are talking about abortion, specifically the abortion of human life by unnatural means.




I didn't ignore any part of your argument. You just have a fundamental misunderstanding of human development. As early as 7 weeks the fetus can and does, at times, suck his or her thumb. I addressed your little bit about allowing babies to be born with disease - I said you would have gotten along great with Hitler.





First of all, your arguments are patently ridiculous. Each and every one of them is constructed in an unbelievably inarticulate manner. Your so-called "scientific" facts are outright delusions, produced as evidence for your inarticulate arguments. Medical professionals are at odds with one another as to when a fetus can feel pain; some medical professionals and scientists say 20 weeks, while others say 26 weeks. Nobody knows for sure yet. Here is a Time article on the matter. And whether or not the fetus can feel pain is irrelevant. The ability to feel pain is not a prerequisite for a sentient being. Your argument contains no facts whatsoever. This includes your biology lessons to your sociology lessons. You are seemingly unable to discern why population rates soar in countries that have outlawed abortion. You read a religious tolerance Web site or a planned parenthood Web site and assume their information is medical fact - it isn't. You and Sheri have brought nothing more than emotional appeal, delusions, and silly arguments to the table. Your contributions to this thread are void of common sense and facts - period.



If that's what the person wanted, then fine.



So why, genius, would you quote me directly above it?




I am quite aware of how many children are alive and famished, without a home, et cetera... I do worry about them. But, as I said, why can't we worry about both at the same time? If the laws were changed and allowed homosexuals and single adults to easily adopt children, we wouldn't have a problem. Did you ever wonder why so many people are adopting kids from foreign nations? Because they can't get approved to adopt children here. Instead of saying we need more abortions, you should argue that we need to change some of these stupid laws.



I don't have to make you out to be uneducated - you just plain are, at least on this issue. I'm not saying you are a stupid person; in fact, you probably aren't. But your arguments are undeniably stupid on this issue - mostly because they aren't true. And your arguments show desperation when you try to invalidate my arguments by asking me questions about my life and what I'm doing to help starving children. It's really pretty silly.

One Out Of Many Scientists That Disagree With Overpopulation Being A Problem.


The massive growth in developing nations is due in large part to fertility rates, where women during their reproductive years will have an average of five children, said Smith. "That's considerably higher than it is in the developed world."


And guess what the developed world has? Contraceptives!!! Yay!

Another one.

And Another

Oh, ANOTHER!

No, I wasn't. I was using that for the argument for birth control. . .Which, as I stated before, was involved in a regulation that was recently being pushed that put birth control under the umbrella term of abortion. Of course birth control controls the population better than abortion, I never argued that it didn't. But I also know that birth control fails, and at such a time, a woman should not be denied an abortion if she wants one.



I'm not jabbering. I'm stating my beliefs. What is your definition of overpopulated? I believe we are overpopulated, seeing as though we're pushing more and more into the habitat of others and pushing more and more species towards extinction.



I'm not relying on a readers stupidity, I'm stating a possible outcome. Tell me what would happen if women had no access to birth control or abortion? Tell me the other options they would have to NOT spend their lives having babies? I'm open to suggestion.



Then that was my misunderstanding. I assumed you thought life was equal to sentience. And I feel that my argument for animals isn't desperate at all. Why is it ok to kill one and not the other? I don't value human life over others, I believe that's arrogant. Especially when one is out of the womb and perfectly aware of life.



I don't understand that at all. I said I was against late term abortion, but I could understand why some would feel it was necessary. How nice of you to compare that stance to Hitler. . .



I understand fully why populations soar in certain places, which is why I've put emphasis on birth control. You don't seem to grasp the fact that MANY in the pro life field are against birth control as well. You may not be, but many are. If abortion were banned, especially if that regulation gets passed that defines birth control as abortion, how long do you think it will be before they start pushing for a ban or restrictions on birth control? If my arguements weren't based on facts, then I wouldn't have been able to produce the experiments that I did. There are more if you desire me to post them, or you can google them for yourself.



I think out of the two of us, I've done a little more unbiased research on the subject. I've been on both sides of the fence. . .put my personal beliefs aside, and went out and learned things first hand. When you go and spend HOURS and hours talking to women who have had abortions, doctors that do the procedures, and all that, then I think you can argue that you've had as much schooling as me on the subject.

You won't change my mind. Sorry. I've already been pro-life once and I believed every argument that you are presenting me with. Then I went and looked on the other side and I decided what I thought to be more logical. You may believe what you want, but accept the fact that others don't.

Which is why you shouldn't quote me if you aren't addressing my arguments. Also, birth control doesn't fail as often as you would like to think. And no, a woman should be denied the choice to murder her child.




Look, I think I posted enough articles to disprove your little overpopulation bit. And seeing as how you are not a scientist, I doubt your belief on overpopulation matters a great deal to me.




Women should have access to birth control, but no abortion. And again, I wasn't arguing against contraceptives. You can't very say we should continue aborting babies because A might happen. It makes no sense.



I value human life above others, but that doesn't mean I'm apathetic to the animals in the pound. The thing, though, is we aren't discussing those animals - we are discussing human beings.




The idea of aborting babies because they have a terrible disease is what I was comparing to Hitler, mostly because killing the infirm was common practice in Nazi Germany.



I am quite aware of those people who are against contraceptives. I argue with them at Pro-Life meetings all the time. But the thing is, you were quoting me - not them. Your biological and sociological arguments were not based on fact. I never denied that Congress was trying to pass a law saying this or that. I ignored that statement because it wasn't crucial to my argument.



When you present arguments the way you have, you can hardly argue that you've had more schooling on the subject. You have no idea what I've done in my life. I attended the University of Michigan and had to write a For or Against paper on the issue. Do you honestly think they would allow a student to present bias research? If we had even thought about quoting a Right To Life paper or Web site, they would have failed us immediately.



You accept your own facts - delusions, what have you. You go on believing whatever suits you, Ma'am. After all, this is America. :-0

There are far too many implications here that the pro-choice supporters in the thread are somehow comparable to Hitler. Arguments such as this never lead to anywhere productive. Therefore, this thread will be closed until further notice.