doorbell

Let's look at the real question for this thread: Where/who did religions come from? Every religion seeks to answer the basic questions that man yearns to know-- Where did we come from? Where are we going? How shall we get there? I would have to say that man is the source of religion. Religion is a collection of beliefs, observations, and inferences that man has made about the world that they live in. Religion is a system of beliefs and principles that a group of people agree upon. That pretty much sums up where religion came from. Of course if we want to determine which religion is true, that would be a different story...

Say what you mean, and you will be misunderstood less often. Which god is your god anyway? If you don't want to appear as a fool, then use good logic, which excluedes ad hominem arguments.

Maybe eating plants. I'm not sure who started the "Are humans superior to other animals" line, but it is somewhat relevant.

I think you evidence supports the fact that the brain has reached a certain point at three months, not that it begins to form at three months. Define "created," to clarify your position.

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right. Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first.

Why just the first three months? Because after the three months this futeus (sp?) is created. So the for the first three months, it's a "blob of cells" and then after that it is a "fetus?" What differnce does that make anyway? What scientific study backs your belief that at three months "voila!" it turns into a "fetus?"

Good grief. If alcohol and drugs make you do stupid things that you regret later, then don't drink/do drugs.

The operative word being stupid ;). In this case, many of the girls would be using abortion as a means of birth control, which in itself is pretty crazy, as it can render the girl infertile. Why should the baby die just because it isn't wanted? Frankly, if you don't want a child, then don't go through the process that creates one.

Why just the first three months? If that's your reasoning, then why should we allow handicapped people to live? Besides, I've met handicapped people, and they are actually happier then un-handicapped people. All of them would definitely rather live in their state than not live.

Which religion card were you trying to play, anyway? It definetly wasn't atheism or humanism.

Most infants need to be fed, i.e they need someone or something to assist them.

Abortion and Suicide Contrary to popular opinion, a British Medical Journal study found that: This study compared the depression rate between women with unintended pregnancies who chose to abort, and those who chose to deliver the child. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... urcetype=1 http://www.scienceblog.com/community/ol ... b3424.html

Do premie ICU's count as mothers? If not, studies indicate that a 'fetus' is potentially viable at 20 weeks. Most infants require the care of an individual, even after birth.

To a degree, yes. Many societies consider abusing/killing your children as unacceptable. Even America does.True, but there is a difference between a child and an unborn. I'm, aware of that, hence my question: What gives you the right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion? Your feelings for taking the life of an unborn? What gives you the right to force her to carry, give birth to, and raise the baby? How is abortion different than day-after pills? As I said I'm convinced that an unborn baby has no self-awareness, so I really don't see how an abortion is different than a day-after pill. You are taking just as many lives. Heck, why is abortion murder if a condom isn't? You're still preventing just as many from being born. Quoting up small parts of the text to put it out of context is the most pathetic form of debate there is, lets try not to sink to that level shall we? Answer my questions instead ;P Since you dislike my seperating your ideas and rebutting them one at a time, I will do it all at once--- What do you mean when you say "offspring?" Are you refering to just unborn offspring? What gives me the right to say what I want to? In my country, I am guarenteed the right to say what I want (within bounds, of course). Thus, my goverment grants me that civil right. When you tell me not to quote small parts of text, don't sink yourself to my level :roll:

Irelevant. I'm not sure that you showed how. To a degree, yes. Many societies consider abusing/killing your children as unacceptable. Even America does. You still haven't said why not. In most countries, yes, but the purpose of this debate is to determine whether or not they should have less rights, not if they do.

Not really. White 'supremists' thought that blacks were less than human, and therefore their's to do whatever they pleased with. Abortion supporters think that unborn beings are less than human, and therefore their's to do whatever they please with.

Who gave Abraham Lincoln (or an other abolishinist) the right so say that slavery was wrong?

That is an entirely illogical statement. If we use this model to make our decisions on policy, than nothing would be illegal, b/c there will always be ppl who are willing to break the law, whatever the risk. Take illegal drugs for example. (I will assume that we agree with illegal substances being bad, if someone disagrees I will present evidence.) When drugs were made illegal, ppl would still buy them. Drug dealing and drug trafficking related crimes (shootings, etc...) rapidly increased when certain drugs were made illegal. Did that change the fact that illegal drugs were harmful? Thankfully our leaders were strong enough to battle the flak that they took and stand for what was right. If we used this logic, then robbing banks should be legalized, that way the robbers wouldn't have to use guns. BTW, I would like to see evidence supporting your claims. :)

A. Lincoln wasn't a slave, but he made his say about slavery quite loudly.

Muse, I said I debate wherever the debate was. That's what I am doing. :wink: I don't quite agree with the position on emotional harm, but I'll research that for a little while....

Mercifull, I must say that I admire your position, provided that most athiest are pro-abortion, but could ou clarify on when anyone should need an abortion?

If you cannot afford to support a child, then practicing abstinence would be the most financially prudent course of action.

Muse is correct that abortion should only be allowed if the pregnancy were a result of rape, etc... of the mother's life was seriously endangered. Financial problems are not applicable, in my views, b/c if a family cannot afford to have kids, then don't get pregnant.

I beleive that the current debate over abortion is ok where it is, because we are not solely discussing abortion. If we need a topic for abortion, than we would need one for every issue that has any role in the upcoming election, which would make the "who should be prez in..." topic unneeded. Unless a mod or someone with authority says to 'only debate abortion here,' I will continue to debate abortion wherever the debate takes place.