Huh? You provided that.Appaholic wrote:for every sob story you provide me about a failed abortion, I'll give you one about a back alley abortion...
Ibanez wrote:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 597136.ece89Hen wrote: Come again?
Did you read the article? All it said is 50 per year are aborted alive. All 50 may very well have died.It is not known how many babies who survive attempted abortions go on to live into adulthood.
NO. IT IS NOT.Ibanez wrote:Who made the decision to abort? And lets not go into the "her parents are making her abort, etc..." or anything like that. The woman or man or both are deciding to abort. It's thier life as well.
Yep, considering more people die from alcohol annually....89Hen wrote:Huh? You provided that.Appaholic wrote:for every sob story you provide me about a failed abortion, I'll give you one about a back alley abortion...
Back alley abortion? Not really a great place to build an arguement. People die from bad heroin... I guess we should just make it legal.
Less than 100% as you attempted to claim eariler....89Hen wrote:Ibanez wrote: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 597136.eceDid you read the article? All it said is 50 per year are aborted alive. All 50 may very well have died.It is not known how many babies who survive attempted abortions go on to live into adulthood.
How is it not? Are you saying the baby doesn't affect their life? When it cannot survive as a living organism without the host? That's an asinine statement....89Hen wrote:NO. IT IS NOT.Ibanez wrote:Who made the decision to abort? And lets not go into the "her parents are making her abort, etc..." or anything like that. The woman or man or both are deciding to abort. It's thier life as well.
Yup. Pretty much it. And if it's murder at one point, it has to be murder at all points. Folks need to go back to page 5 or so and answer the questions about when it's OK to abort. Not OK after they're born. Not OK one day before born. So who decides at which point? I can't make that call, nor can anyone. Viability? That's changed dramatically over time.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:The whole abortion argument always boils down to one thing - when is the life inside a mother considered a human being? When the cell first splits? When the baby is born? Somewhere in between? No one can answer that question definitively and, therefore, no one can argue infallably concerning the proper legality of abortion.
No it doesn't. It has to be death at all points, but not all death is murder...89Hen wrote:Yup. Pretty much it. And if it's murder at one point, it has to be murder at all points.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:The whole abortion argument always boils down to one thing - when is the life inside a mother considered a human being? When the cell first splits? When the baby is born? Somewhere in between? No one can answer that question definitively and, therefore, no one can argue infallably concerning the proper legality of abortion.
It's not THEIR life they're taking. It's the baby's life they're taking.Appaholic wrote:How is it not? Are you saying the baby doesn't affect their life? When it cannot survive as a living organism without the host? That's an asinine statement....
It is when it's intentional and not in self-defense or war.Appaholic wrote:No it doesn't. It has to be death at all points, but not all death is murder...
Argue semantics all you want... that's all you have on your side.Appaholic wrote:Less than 100% as you attempted to claim eariler....
The stickler, though, is that your argument can be presented from both directions...89Hen wrote:Yup. Pretty much it. And if it's murder at one point, it has to be murder at all points. Folks need to go back to page 5 or so and answer the questions about when it's OK to abort. Not OK after they're born. Not OK one day before born. So who decides at which point? I can't make that call, nor can anyone. Viability? That's changed dramatically over time.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:The whole abortion argument always boils down to one thing - when is the life inside a mother considered a human being? When the cell first splits? When the baby is born? Somewhere in between? No one can answer that question definitively and, therefore, no one can argue infallably concerning the proper legality of abortion.
Actually, the "when is it a human being" question isn't the dividing line that allows abortions - the only line between when abortions are allowed (outside of the physical health of the mother) is viability outside of the womb. If the life, whether it be a collection or cells, zygotes, fetus, or baby, is viable outside of the womb, then it is protected. So the real quandry will be when, in the next say 50 years, science advances to the point where the life can be viable outside of the womb very close to conception, what is allowed and what isn't.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:The whole abortion argument always boils down to one thing - when is the life inside a mother considered a human being? When the cell first splits? When the baby is born? Somewhere in between? No one can answer that question definitively and, therefore, no one can argue infallably concerning the proper legality of abortion.
No abortions take place after two, four or eight cells with the possible exeption of the morning after pill.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:To most, two cells does not a human being make. What about four cells ? Eight? After one month of development? After two? While you count backwards, another will count forwards and there still will not be an answer.
So are you "pro" or "con" morning after pill and why?89Hen wrote: No abortions take place after two, four or eight cells with the possible exeption of the morning after pill.
Your side as well...both arguments are semantics..a point I readily admit, but youfail to acknowledge...89Hen wrote:Argue semantics all you want... that's all you have on your side.Appaholic wrote:Less than 100% as you attempted to claim eariler....
Argue semantics all you want... that's all you have on your side.89Hen wrote:It is when it's intentional and not in self-defense or war.Appaholic wrote:No it doesn't. It has to be death at all points, but not all death is murder...
Hey! Where's my amniotic sack? Or do I not count as a person now that I am out of the womb...89Hen wrote:No abortions take place after two, four or eight cells with the possible exeption of the morning after pill.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:To most, two cells does not a human being make. What about four cells ? Eight? After one month of development? After two? While you count backwards, another will count forwards and there still will not be an answer.
BTW... two months:
To be consistent I should probably be against it, but I'm still out on that one.SunCoastBlueHen wrote:So are you "pro" or "con" morning after pill and why?
You didn't keep yours?Appaholic wrote:Hey! Where's my amniotic sack? Or do I not count as a person now that I am out of the womb...
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).Appaholic wrote:Argue semantics all you want... that's all you have on your side.89Hen wrote: It is when it's intentional and not in self-defense or war.
Yes. If you say the baby's life is viable, then all we have to do is remove it from it's host that doesn't want it and the baby's ok not murdered, right? Is that what you want to support? Fine with me....you say tomato, I say tomahto....89Hen wrote:It's not THEIR life they're taking. It's the baby's life they're taking.Appaholic wrote:How is it not? Are you saying the baby doesn't affect their life? When it cannot survive as a living organism without the host? That's an asinine statement....
As for viability, are you really sure you want to go there?
Why would I acknowledge a point with which I don't agree?Appaholic wrote:Your side as well...both arguments are semantics..a point I readily admit, but youfail to acknowledge...
Here we go again. The same instution you are quoting (US Govt) to support your murder of a person also won't allow the mother to claim a pregnancy for child care tax credit. Kind of inconvenient, i know....89Hen wrote:1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).Appaholic wrote:
Argue semantics all you want... that's all you have on your side.
Not what I support at all. Taking a baby out before full term is completely neglegent if the mother's life is not in jeopardy. Can it live, maybe. Would it have a better chance going to term, most often yes. The point was arguing viablitity from a pro-abortion side is a losing proposition.Appaholic wrote:Yes. If you say the baby's life is viable, then all we have to do is remove it from it's host that doesn't want it and the baby's ok not murdered, right? Is that what you want to support? Fine with me....you say tomato, I say tomahto....