I will never think its right for people to make choices for others. I'm very pro-freedom

I also do not think life- in its purest form- is anything but an experience that requires physical and mental abilties that alliow the being to process and evalute the world around them. (as well as themselves).

the frontal lobes are the key for conscious awareness. look at people who survive botched lobotomies (like in One Flew Over the Coo-coo's nest for instance) and are in a semi-vegitative state because their forntal lobes have been damaged.
these take time to grow in.

I do look at both sides. I admit the religious aspect is the hardest part for me.
while I beleive god forgives, I don't think s/he endorses.
and I don't know where God stands on the gov getting in the way of free will. (I don't think god wants us to take others other's choices. free will and choice comes from god, we just tend to make the wrong choices at times)

I know how I feel about abortion on a legal stnace- its up to the woman and no one else.
I know I don't want to have any abortions.
I do not know where god stands or how to judge abortion from a moral perspective. but I do have the upmost sympathy for those who make that hard choice and do not judge them personally.

I agree completely. A woman shouldn't be allowe a choice that results in the termination of the life of someone else. We have been through this before wolf. Simply assuming that unborns are not living human beings so you can make your argument is a logical fallacy. It is called begging the question. It amounts to saying that unborns are not living human beings because unborns are not living human beings. That doesn't constitute philosophy wolf.

Either you can prove that they are not living human beings or you can't. Which is it. Science states explicitly that they are and unless you can provide something besides your belief, that assumption on your part isn't going to fly.

Our freedom is based on certain inalienable rights. The founding documents of our counrty say that we come into being with certain inalienable rights and the right to live is one of them. If you are pro freedom, then you should logically be against anyone unilatarally denying someone else's very right to be alive.

We have been throught that as well wolf and you lost. If you are injured and lose some of your mental capacities, you don't become less of a person because your personhood isn't dependent upon your mental capacities. Even children who are born with no brains and will live at most a few days are considered to be persons. They get birth certificates, they get death certificates and we can't simply kill them because they have the right to live. They are persons even though they can't have a single thought.

[quote=wolf_22;365132]the frontal lobes are the key for conscious awareness. look at people who survive botched lobotomies (like in One Flew Over the Coo-coo's nest for instance) and are in a semi-vegitative state because their forntal lobes have been damaged.
these take time to grow in.[/quote

The fact is wolf, that every part that we develop as we mature is part of our essential nature. Frontal lobes are part of our essential nature. You seem to place a great deal of importance on that particular part of our anatomy even though it has become clear that you don't really know what they do. You have this mistaken view and you hold to it even though you can't provide any credible science to support your view. If frontal lobes are what makes us human beings, then we don't become human beings until years after we are born because they aren't complete until years after we are born. We don't become more of a person as they develop.

Killing ones child if that child isn't threatening one's life is always a bad decision wolf. WIth regard to God's forgiveness. Do you believe that you can do a thing that you know is wrong and it is ok do do that thing just because you plan to ask God to forgive you after you do it? And if you beleive the Bible, then there is everything you need to know about God's stance on the governemnt.

But you are completely unable to make a rational defense of your belief. When we can't make a rational argument for our beliefs then we really should be re-examining them.

If you believe the bible then you must believe that God has said that the shedding of innocent blood, that is the murder of innocents is among the things he hates the most. In fact, he calls it an abomonation. If unborns were not human beings, then abortion would be no problem but they are and the more we learn, the more sure we become that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved.

I fear that you may have been influenced by peach with regard to souls. Peach is teaching from bastardized translations of the Bible that are off just a little bit. Only someone who has studied the Bible would notice that the words in the verses she references are off a bit. Sometimes just by one word but that one word is enough to lead you to believe that the entire meaning is different. I would hate for you to be influenced by false teaching.

And since you don't know how God feels about abortion, how is it that you are willing to take a chance of displeasing him greatly by supporting abortion? It doesn't matter whether you ever have an abortion or not. Supporting abortion, in God's eyes is the same as having one. If you believe the Bible, Jesus, in the New Testament tells us that we don't actually have to do a thing to be guilty of the sin.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

[quote=PaleRider;365150]I agree completely. A woman shouldn't be allowe a choice that results in the termination of the life of someone else. We have been through this before wolf. Simply assuming that unborns are not living human beings so you can make your argument is a logical fallacy. It is called begging the question. It amounts to saying that unborns are not living human beings because unborns are not living human beings. That doesn't constitute philosophy wolf.
I have explained my reasoning about why I don't find themt o be human. as well as saying that others agree and perhaps its not the govs place to tell them what to believe.
I also don't think its right to ruin someone's life just so a very under developed 'life' can grow. especially when not only the female but her offspring will suffer. very few unwanted fetuses grow into happy children. they become criminals, they suffer abuse and neglect, they are poor, they in general have a poor quality of life.

Either you can prove that they are not living human beings or you can't. Which is it. Science states explicitly that they are and unless you can provide something besides your belief, that assumption on your part isn't going to fly.
intellect. can we really discount the abilty to think when juding life?


Our freedom is based on certain inalienable rights. The founding documents of our counrty say that we come into being with certain inalienable rights and the right to live is one of them. If you are pro freedom, then you should logically be against anyone unilatarally denying someone else's very right to be alive.
and if I defend a fetus's right to grow, Im telling a woman she can't control her reproductive rights, body, and she can't amend her mistake and must ruin her life. I can't do that.


We have been throught that as well wolf and you lost. If you are injured and lose some of your mental capacities, you don't become less of a person because your personhood isn't dependent upon your mental capacities. Even children who are born with no brains and will live at most a few days are considered to be persons. They get birth certificates, they get death certificates and we can't simply kill them because they have the right to live. They are persons even though they can't have a single thought.
doesn't make it right. and yes people who lose their mental abilities are not the same person nor would I be. I support volenteery euthinasia for them if they so choose beforehand or their family
I believe that god is both forgiving and rational. That when I lay in bed at night and explain my beliefs and where I come up with those ideas, I think god understands and takes that into account when s/he judges me. I also believe that its sin to say you support freedom and than take away rights. I support immoral things being legal because its not my place to stop others. Were I to do so I’d be lying and taking away their god given free will.

I am interested in reading that Christian women who have abortions book. It wil be nice to see just how women who believe in god struggle with such a hard situation and deal with the consequences of their choices on a mental and spiritual level.

Wolf, you might not find an orange to be an orange, it's still an orange.

__________________
Gun control is giving criminals guns and taken guns away from law abiding citizens.

We have been here already wolf. As I have pointed out, what you choose to believe is irrelavent when there is hard scientific fact to dispute you. Philosophy simply can not change fact no matter how much you want it to. It can't change the moon into green cheese, it can't change the sun into a ball of fire that rides a chariot across the sky and it can't change a living human bieng into something else. If you believe something other than facts, you are deluding yourself. Unborns are living human beings. Now feel free to fabricate a philosophical reason why it is OK to kill them but you can not make them into something other than what they are by applying your beliefs to them.

Straight and simple wolf, that unborns are living human beings from the time they are concieved is not a matter of belief. It is scientific fact. Now if you can't deal with reality, then philosophy isn't going to help you at all because philosophy isn't about hiding reality, it is about understanding it.

Now either prove that unborns aren't living human beings or stop whining and accept the fact and move on from there. Denying the facts isn't going to change them.

Maintaining a life style is not a valid reason to kill. The rights of infants are protected and they are underdeveloped. You can't go about killing them even though they can wreck your finances.

Can you prove that very few unwanted children grow into happy children? Once more wolf, saying a thing doesn't make it so. A very large number of us were unwanted pregnancies wolf, but the funny thing is that women who think about abortion but don't have them very often fall in love with the child they had planned to kill. I am going to need some proof that most unwanted pregnancies end up in miserable children. And when you can't find proof, I want to to admit that you were wrong.

We must consider intellect when factoring in quality of life, or the ability to contribute to society, but judging life? Of course not. From the time we are concieved, unless something goes terribly wrong, we are destined to be intellectual creatures. It is our essential nature. It is the kind of being we are. If intellect were a consideration then those with the more powerful intellect would have to be considered more human, more alive, and therefore more of a person than those who had lesser intellects. Since we don't become more human or more of a person because we have greater or lesser intellectual capabilities, then clearly, intellect isn't what makes us human beings. It is the kind of creature we are wolf, not the degree to which we manifest our essential nature.

When a trait is part of our essential nature, the fact that we don't have it yet is irrelavent. Saying that we should be allowed to kill unborn children because they don't have brains "yet" is the same sort of argument as saying that we should be allowed to kill any child under 6 because they don't have any permanant teeth yet. Of course, they will have permanant teeth because it is their essential nature. Killing them because they don't have them "yet" is nonesense.

Then you favor one group's freedom over another's. It is like saying that if you don't like slavery, then don't own one. It doesn't matter whether you own a slave or not, the issue is that a whole group is having their rights denied and you not owning one doesn't help the group.

You are an ageist. It is just like being a racist except you beleive that people's rights are based on how old they are instead of what color they are. A woman can control her reproductive rights by not having sex with someone she doensn't want to have a child with. You realy aren't about women having control, you are about women being allowed to kill when their loss of control, or refusal to control themselves results in a child.


Maybe not the same personality, but still the same person. The child isn't a volunteer wolf and the child isn't so terribly injured or so sick that he or she can't reasonably be expected to recover. End of life issues are not analogous to beginning of life issues wolf.

You think so? If you believe in God, then you must believe the Bible and the bible is God's instructions on how to live a life that pleases him. You laying in bed explaining why you disregard those guidelines are about the same as a kid who has a 10:00 curfiew coming in at 3:45 in the morning explaining that s/he knew they weren't supposed to be out so late but they just wanted to do it and figured you would just forgive them. And tomorrow they are going to do something else that you have told them not to do and again, expect you to forgive them. Willful disobedience isn't so easily forgiven wolf. If you are going to attempt to make religious arguments, then you probably should famiiliarize yourself with God's teachings.

Either way you look at it wolf, someone is losing their rights. If you support choice, then the woman has the right to continue merrily along as if nothing happened and the child loses its most basic human right. The right to live. If you support life, then the child gets to keep its most basic human right and the woman might be inconvenienced but could still give the child up for adoption if she doesn't want to keep it. If someone is going to lose some right, then you have to chose the greater right over the lesser. Preserving the right to live outweighs the right to not be inconvenienced.

Why? Their reasons are going to be the same as yours and they are going to be deluding themselves into beleiveing that what the did was just OK with God. And if you believe in God, then you must believe that they haven't even begun to deal with their choices on a spiritual level. They won't begin to deal with their choices on a spiritual level until after they die.

The thing is wolf, in order to be forgiven for killing their children, they would have to be genuinely sorry for doing it but can you be genuinely sorry for doing a thing when you did it knowing full well what you were doing? If you do a thing planning on being forgiven after you do it do you believe that you can really be sorry that you did it because I don't think just saying you are sorry is enough.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

How does allowing the baby to live "ruin" anyone's life? If the mere existence of a baby ruins a life, then it would take no more than three or four IQ points to figure out that having SEX caused the problem. Having sex has very clear, defined consequences, and when it is a voluntary act, there is NO blame on the baby you think ought to be killed, but on the woman who spread her legs and CHOSE to exercise her rights over her body.

Nobody (in this thread or this forum, so far as I know) is trying to control a woman's reproductive rights. Every woman on the planet has the right to insert whatever she likes into her reproductive organs, and to reproduce whenever she chooses to attempt to do so. But pretending to proptect "reproductive rights" AFTER a woman has chosen to reproduce is ridiculous. The rights are now about the NEW, HUMAN life she CHOSE to create, not about whether she's allowed to make a baby...she already did that. The reproduction is done once the man's rolled over and smoked his cigarette.

"Amend her mistake..." Heh. Cute. I'm voting for YOU as President. Once you're in, can you pass some of these "Amend Your Mistake" laws that destroy any other rights involved? I'd like to "Amend my mistake" and quit paying mortgage, and SCREW the Bank's right to get paid; I'd like to "Amend my mistake" after I rob a bank, and screw the bank customers' rights to have their money back.

Yeah, if you base your legal/moral/religious views on the notion that if you want to "amend your mistake", NOBODY else's rights matter, then I can see why killing babies who were INTENTIONALLY created, by people with the foreknowledge to see what they were doing, would seem perfectly ok to you.

To average humans, it's ludicrous. You can't "amend" your own mistakes by ignoring any rights that may interfere.

"Not the same person" is an expression, not a medical fact. My grandmother was "not the same person" in her last years. But, check her fingerprints, take a DNA sample, check her SS#, and she is, in fact, the same person. She just behaved differently than the person I remembered.

And, why "voluntary" euthanasia? Why not give relatives the right to not be burdened with drooling idiot family members? Why isn't there a place I can take my doddering grandmother and have her aborted? She became a burden to me, she wasn't "the same person", she couldn't take nourishment on her own...she wasn't "viable." Why couldn't I have her killed for my convenience? And why do you feel that a human with no more ability to survive alone than a fetus should get a choice, when the same definitions used to say a fetus isn't "human" would apply to a person who has all but stopped functioning?

Free will, whether given by God or by condition of birth or whatever anyone believes, cannot be taken away except by perhaps lobotomy or some other extrem medical or accidental damage. Free will means you have the right to choose...nothing more. If you read the U.S.C. or the C.F.R. or the Constitution, they're full of nothing BUT choices...choices to behave or be punished; choices to comply or face fines. Same as the Bible. Laws, whether religious, governmental, or self-imposed don't take away choices, they simply clarify your options into "if...then" scenarios.

The Ten Commandments don't take away ANYONE'S ability to decide to break them.

Nothing nice to see there...ignorance, self-deception, or straight out sin are all pretty ugly things. Couple that with the fact that no matter WHICH side you're on, it's very clear that there's room for doubt...so why kill a baby when it's even remotely possible to be a sin, when instead you can keep the baby that you CHOSE to make, and be on the safe side?

The only thing "nice" about reading how Christian women deal with the aftermath would be if you get a kick out of watching Christians totter on the precipice. Not my bag o' tea, but if you find it "nice", dive in.

And the ONLY kind of Christian woman who'd get an abortion would be one of those who thinks the sin-then-forgive option is a buffet they can belly up to when it's convenient, and walk away from when they feel full "forgiven" for their sins.

The other kind of woman who might be perceived as Christian who would get an abortion is the kind we see everywhere - the Bible matters when she agrees with it, but not when it's inconvenient to what she wants.

__________________
Global Warming is my favorite color.

sometimes when your back is against the wall you have to make a bad choice. and every option is bad no matter what. god isnt foolish and may not agree with that choice, but unlike you god understand how hard that situation is and knows that each woman deals with consequences no matter what choice she makes.

so your male correct?

the choice isn't easy and no one makes it lightly.
no one is happy about having an abortion. but at least at one point or another, they felt it was the BEST option avalible. many come to that conclusion in different ways.

Then you have lost the debate wolf. Sorry but that is just the way it goes. If you can't prove that unborns are someting other than living human beings, then none of the rest of your argument works.

I have looked it up wolf, that is why I suggested that you look it up. That whole thing about abortion lowering the crime rate has been debunked. It was based on a speculation that simply didn't work out statistically. There is no cause and effect there. Almost half of us are the result of unintended pregnancies. If what you say were true, then half of us would be criminals and that simply is not the case.

Until your brain develops you are immature. You are what you are at any level of maturity. You were just as much a living human being at 2 as you are now even though at 2 your brain and your body were far from being mature. You didn't become more human because you became more mature. You just became more mature.

You say that, but your position says otherwise. You choose conveniece for the mother over the child's very right to live.

Very childish position wolf. It smacks of immaturity and inability to deal with adult responsibilty.

1 in 12,000. And the child's life is not theoretical. It exists. Unless you can prove otherwise. It is exceedingly childish to continue to deny hard, factual science.

Unless you can provide some evidence to support your contention that unborns are not living human beings, or accept the fact and build an argument for why it is OK to kill them I am afraid that you have lost this philosophical discussion wolf. Philosophy is not a license to simply make up fairy tales to suit your beliefs. Philosophy is about getting to the truth and the truth is that you don't seem to be able to deal with the truth and prefer to invent fantasies for your self.

When you feel like you can discuss this topic as an adult, accepting the facts as they are let me know. Until then, there simply isn't much else to say on the subject. I don't have much interest in the stories that you tell to yourself.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

I have no more interest in trying to discuss this with you.
you are so wrapped up in your fetus-worship you can't see anything else.