How we "look" You claim that they are some how not human beings because of they way they "look". Did you know that entire races have been enslaved and our own supreme court once ruled that a race was not human beings based on nothing more than how they looked?

How they look is the shallowest possible argument moggy. How they look is the argument of a prejudiced biggot. Any second year lab student can tell you which is human and which is not via a simple DNA test. If the best you can do is point out how we look to an untrained, uneducated eye, then you are going to lose this even more quickly than I thought.

__________________
"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

Interesting point. It was brought up in the Roe case, but it is really up to the States to step up to the plate and pass laws clarifying when life begins.

Whoa boy, what drugs you on. I said how we all look alike, I wasn't discriminating you are doing that. What I was pointing out was that we are all the same, which reinforces my view that we are part of the one creation.
You call me a biggot, well I've already won, as you have started using name calling to bolster your aguement. Pathetic bud.
Life all comes from the one beginning, the one source, I am the tree I am the bird I am the cat and yes I am you.
All life is scared, even for fools like you.
Of course people can use science to discriminate between the different parts of creation, but that would make you a biggot in my book bud.

__________________
To Love and be Loved, thats all that is required.

CHIEF CRAZY CROTCH

When we begin to live is not a matter of law, it is a matter of biology. The law has proven itself to be quite inept with regard to biological matters. For example, the Surpeme Court once ruled that blacks weren't human beings. Do you believe that for the period that ruling stood that blacks really weren't human beings? Do you believe that their biological nature changed as a result of that ruling?

__________________
"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

But we are not all the same. To the uneducated eye we may all appear to be the same, but that is the lack of education speaking, not any actual fact.

Did I call you a biggot or did I point out that making assumptions based on appearances is the argument of a prejudiced biggot? There is a difference. Now you actually have begun to call names which according to your rules makes you a loser.

By the way, simply because you are made of the same stuff doesn't make you the same. Once more, a deduction founded on a complete misunderstanding of the science.

__________________
"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

If the fetus is totally dependent on that woman's body (and only that woman's body) for life, then either she owns it or it owns her.

__________________
Life is too short for endless patience.

-rice "hussein" chickie

Dependence doesn't constitute ownership and dependence doesn't constitute a valid reason, or excuse to kill. Your arguments so far have been nothing but one logical fallacy after another. Do you have any rational arguments to put foreward?

__________________
"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

And yet you fail to point out where my logic falls short. If, indeed, the woman doesn't "own" the fetus, then who does? It's not an independent being, so it can't "own" itself. No one else can grow that fetus. In terms of ownership, either the woman owns the fetus, or it owns her (meaning that its survival trumps her wants and needs, and EVERY decision is made in the interests of the fetus).

You make assumptions based on your desire to preserve the life of the unborn at any cost, and show no similar concern for the woman who carries the unborn baby.

Your argument is that the "innocent life" takes precedence. And mine is that the life already being lived takes precedence.

__________________
Life is too short for endless patience.

-rice "hussein" chickie

Politically speaking, abortion is an issue that involves competing rights. On the one hand, you have the mother's right not to be pregnant. On the other hand, you have the baby's right not to be killed. The question that must be answered is this. Which right is more fundamental? Which right has a greater claim? Abortion advocates argue that outlawing abortion would, in essence, elevate the rights of the unborn over and above those of the mother. "How can you make a fetus more important than a grown woman?", they might ask. In reality, outlawing abortion wouldn't be giving unborn children more rights, it would simply gain for them the one most fundamental right that no one can live without, the right to life.

If a baby is not to be aborted, then the pregnant mother must remain pregnant. This will also require of her sickness, fatigue, reduced mobility, an enlarged body, and a new wardrobe. Fortunately, it is not a permanent condition. On the flip side, for a pregnant woman not to be pregnant, her child must be killed (unless she is past her 21st week of pregnancy, in which case the baby may well survive outside the womb). Abortion costs the unborn child his or her very life and it is a thoroughly permanent condition. This is what's at stake, both for the child and for the mother. It is not an issue of who is more important, but rather who has more on the line.

Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the government must protect the more fundamental right. Let's consider crosswalks. A car is driving down the street while a person is crossing the street. The law requires the driver of that car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time.

Obviously, for a woman to remain pregnant, she gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, but she gives up far less than the baby who would otherwise be killed. This is what it all comes down to. Abortion permanently takes away the life of the unborn. Pregnancy temporarily takes away some of the freedoms of the mother. Since there is far more at stake for the child, the more fundamental right to life must be upheld.

__________________
Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America's self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant. - Ann Coulter

If you were born after 1972 you are a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

"If you can't protect life how can you protect liberty." Ron Paul

__________________
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." Thomas Jefferson

"The conservative movement has been hijacked and turned into a globalist, interventionist, open borders ideology, which is not the conservative movement I grew up with." Pat Buchanan

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson