<p>Ahhhh. </p>
<p>For the record, I’m pro-life.</p>
<p>Dem-o-crat! fo’ sho!</p>
<p>Isn’t anyone else worried about Alaska’s Self-Imposed Kommunist Stupidity?</p>
<p>Combo of anarcho-capitalist views and pro-science views (which demand some government). Psychologically, I’m liberal to an <em>extreme</em>, but Democrats tend to be against homeschooling and economic liberalism (in the classical freedom-loving sense). </p>
<p>Disillusioned with both parties but I would lean democrat right now (since for now, it’s better for science, and most republicans would detest someone of my personality). I’d probably be a Republican if it were the 1950s though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Honestly, to me that is like saying “rape will happen anyway, so why don’t we legalize it and provide people with condoms?”</p>
<p>It all revolves around whether an embryo is a human or not. I believe that it is.</p>
<p>Republican.</p>
<p>Republican.</p>
<p>Republican.</p>
<p>This thread has gone through like 8 more pages since my last post two days ago. Didn’t read it all. But people are saying some pretty disgraceful $hit, like that others are going to be raped because of safety measures with guns.
In actuality, it ought not be a “belief”. It is a cut and dry scientific fact that a human embryo or fetus is human. Genetics has shown us that a unique human being is created at the moment of conception, separate from both mother and father. “Embryo” and “fetus” are just stages of development such as “baby”, “toddler”, “adolescent”, and “adult”. There can be a chicken embryo, a bovine embryo, or a human embryo. It is mere superstition or ill-informed falsehood to claim that a human is not human until you can see it, or until is passes some arbitrary point in time. This is ironic, given that the Democrats are generally the ones that pride themselves on following science, but then again, neither party is nearly perfect.</p>
<p>A human being is a separate organism with the DNA of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. That makes these human being that it is legal to kill no less human than you or I. That is a scientific fact.</p>
<p>(For the record, as I stated before, I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I am a socialist, believing that all human beings are equal and have the right to life. Well, unless “Irish Republican” counts as Republican here, but that is a totally different context.)</p>
<p>"Honestly, to me that is like saying ‘rape will happen anyway, so why don’t we legalize it and provide people with condoms?’ "</p>
<p>Bad comparison is bad. Apparently people are inclined to have abortions for pleasure.</p>
<p>…</p>
<p>Abortions happen because the mother 1) was raped or 2) is financially incapable of raising the child or 3) do not yet have the abilities to raise the child. You may disagree with whether these reasons warrant abortions, but they are nonetheless perfectly acceptable rationales for people who wants abortion.</p>
<p>Rape occurs because the raper wants pleasure.</p>
<p>Also, as BillyMc pointed out, science > your opinion. Emotion and your false interpretation of what’s human or not is not an acceptable reason to change the law. Glad the Supreme Court recognizes this point.</p>
<p>
Did you misunderstand me? I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, on the basis of science. The scientific facts of who is a human being, in conjunction with the idea that it ought to be illegal to kill human beings, should have pointed to a decision against abortion.</p>
<p>I’ll support abortion on the condition that the second trimester timeframe be extended to the first 18 years of life. A child that was not so burdensome during pregnancy might become inconvenient at a later time. Maybe mom loses her job, or discovers that she is not emotionally ready to have a child that can drive, or figures out that the father is in fact not her husband but that bartender from the Mexico cruise. If she can terminate a child on the possibility that it might become inconvenient, she should be able to terminate a child on the certainty that it is inconvenient. Her body (apparently), her choice.</p>
<p>^^^ Point granted. Maybe this is more appropriate:</p>
<p>That is like saying “murder will happen anyway, so let’s legalize it and allow professionals to do it efficiently to avoid danger to others”.</p>
<p>And I’m not sure if I misunderstood, but I believe BillyMc was in agreement with me.</p>
<p>I do not believe that either of your reasons #2 or #3 would warrant killing a two year old, and I consider killing an embryo to be no different. I cannot answer reason #1, as I have never been in or known anyone who was in the situation.</p>
<p>I believe that an abortion can be justifiable if the mother will die otherwise, because I believe that it can be justifiable to kill a human who has been born in order to save the life of another. I leave the question of rape to those qualified to answer. I do not believe that any other cases are justifiable.</p>
<p>Except for the case of rape, the mother chose* to allow that child to be created. She should not have done so if she was not willing and able to support him or her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perfectly acceptable? What does that mean. If someone views abortion as intrinsically evil, then there are no perfectly acceptable rationales, unless you are discussing the framework of the relevant individual.</p>
<p>And unless you have statistics on abortion, please shut your mouth about reasons. Statistically, fewer than 2% of abortions happen because of rape:</p>
<p>[Facts</a> About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics](<a href=“http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics]Facts”>Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics)</p>
<p>
I’ve always heard that rape is a crime of anger, not pleasure.</p>
<p>
or 4.) just doesn’t want to bother with a baby or 5.) uses it as a form of birth control or 6.) is scared and doesn’t understand that she is killing a human being or 7.) is a teenager and being pressured by her parents because they’re ashamed of her or 8.) any other number of reasons not included in a three number generalizing list.</p>
<p>
Part one of this sentence conflicts with part two. Didn’t you agree with me that science should be given great weight? So you agree that the children being killed are, naturally, human. So you think that being unprepared or financially unable to pay for a child is a perfectly acceptable rationale to kill him/her? It’s not like there are organizations that financially support pregnant women, and it’s not like you can just drop babies off at fire stations, no questions asked, and they will be cared for and put up for adoption, right? Or is what I just said true without the "not"s…</p>
<p>Sorry, I misunderstood BillyMc.</p>
<p>@MosbyMarion: “Oh! I see rape wasn’t a good example… let’s go for murder!” That argument is getting worse so I won’t even respond to that part.</p>
<p>Your other argument still rests on the assumption that what you consider human is indeed a human.</p>
<p>@Baelor: Shut your mouth? Seriously? Anyways, I avoided saying a percentage precisely because I’m not sure about the statistics. Granted, I didn’t do research on the stats, but your link does provide evidence that the majority of those who want abortion did so for a reason other than just “I don’t want a baby.” And yes, I am discussion on the framework on the individual.</p>
<p>@BillyMc: “It is a cut and dry scientific fact” No it is not. “Cut and dry scientific facts” are hard to find because science involves evidence, not facts. Abortion would not be as controversial if anyone can pull out a “cut and dry fact” out of the ass. </p>
<p>That aside, the reasons you gave for abortion are for the minority, and 6 is just bogus. They are not killing a human, especially if it’s in the early stages. A zygote (of anything less than fetus with developed brain) has no characteristics unique to that of a human and there is absolutely no logic for people to oppose aborting it; people oppose it because of their own feelings. “That collection of cells came from humans, so it must be considered human even though it hast yet any characteristics of a human.” The people who wants abortion can give **** about what you think is a human or not. As long as what they’re aborting has no emotions or willpower, it’s completely up to the ethics of the person in question whether or not to get an abortion even for reasons that I didn’t list in my previous post. If completely up to themselves if they don’t consider an emotionless being to be human.</p>
<p>I’m done arguing with people who ultimately says “I consider ___ a human. Therefore aborting it is the same as murder. My opinion matters, even tough the people such as the Supreme Court justices disagreed with me”</p>
<p>Democrat or Republican? I like Lady Gaga. So, I’ll just go with being part of the Gaga Party or being part of the Little/Mother Monster Party. Or whatever. c:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is that mentioning them without the statistics is misleading – if one abortion was performed ever because of fear of alien abduction, then discussion whether abortion should be allowed in such cases is largely irrelevant until the larger issues relating to abortion have been resolved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Three-fourths of women did so because it would “interfere with their lives.” In other words, “I don’t want a baby.”</p>
<p>
Oh, I am sorry. I never knew about the species Insciens Zygote that magically turns into Homo Sapiens Sapiens at birth. Fascinating.</p>
<p>You are the one with the opinion of what is a human. I am the one stating the science behind a separate organism with human DNA being human. That’s the defining characteristic of a human being. Not some arbitrary thing you assign. “Emotion” and “willpower”? Well, I recall a video of a fetus being aborted, and it goes to the back of the uterus wall and tries to kick the blade away. And do you consider a born infant to be human? Because up to a certain age, human babies have the same mental abilities as that of chimpanzee babies of the same age, until they diverge. So babies are not human? Or are chimpanzees human? Because you said that the unborn children have NO characteristics of humans. And they do have human DNA. So Human DNA is not a characteristic of humans, correct? Which side do you pick? Human babies are not human, or chimpanzee babies are human?</p>
<p>Yeah, someone can believe whatever they want about who is human, but history has shown us that denying the humanity of any human leads only to death and oppression. Human Rights are necessary to a righteous society.</p>
<p>And the idea is that the Supreme Court is supposed to say what is right, not that something is right because the Supreme Court says it. I recall quite a few rulings on slavery that I would disagree with, no matter how much you respect the Supreme Court. They cannot grant humanity, it is intrinsic.</p>
<p>^Nice. I agree completely. </p>
<p>Let’s put abortion in perspective: how many “pro-choice” people here who perform an abortion themselves? </p>
<p>It’s interesting…a lot of the justification of abortion on this thread seems to run along the line of “women are going to find a way to do it anyways so make it legal and safe”…I could say the same about murder (of a born person). A lot of people are going to find ways to do it anyway, why not just make it legal? </p>
<p>(/sarcasm).</p>