Sly_Wizard

No. The answer is because it's human, and all creatures are partial to members of their own species. Anywho, the bolded part is just stupid. Dolphins are incredibly intelligent creatures, yet people eat them. The next thing you're going to tell me is that because humans eat dolphins, that we should also be allowed to eat any human which shows less "complexity" (Whatever that means) than your average dolphin. ...And what in the blue hell does it mean to be a "under-developed group of cells"? The answer? Nothing. It's merely a way to try to devalue a fetus. Whoever came up with that term should be shot dead because it's inane and doesn't mean anything. I've seen this video before and it's just as dumb now as it was then. See, I find people who ask this question to be completely unknowledgeable of abortion laws in the U.S. pre-RvW. If RvW were overturned and a state made abortion illegal, we'd return to the status quo pre-1973. In other words, nothing would happen to the woman having the abortion. The doctor, on the other hand, would be prosecuted for performing an illegal procedure. (And surely you realize that video has been edited, right?)

There was nothing to address, as you proceeded to put words into my mouth to suit whatever argument you were trying to make. You totally and completely missed the point. We're not talking about after the child is born, but before, where a woman is under no obligation to continue her pregnancy. Oh, and I'm not disputing the fact that no one has the right to abandon a child after it's born. Rather, we were talking about before the child is born, right after sex, where a man has no say so in anything whatsoever as it pertains to him or his unborn child and where the woman is under no obligation to continue her pregnancy. If he wants the kid and she doesn't, he's SOL-- No amount of pleading is going to save his kid. If doesn't want the kid and she does, he's going to be coughing up child support. By attempting to shift the focus of the argument, you're ignoring the extreme double-standard being perpetuated here. I mean, you keep saying there is no right to be free of parental responsibility, then I must ask you to explain to me what an abortion attempts to achieve? ...And I just have to add this in, but a fetus does not constitute a woman's body. No, it really doesn't. Okay, and? Once again, no one denied that women are the victims of rape or domestic assault. Of course, there are woman's groups who vehemently deny the opposite to be true. You don't know what percentages are, do you? A greater percentage of men ordered to pay child support pay up than do women ordered to pay child support. Of course, there are more men (Raw numbers) who owe child support, but of the men who owe child support more pay up than do women. ...Didn't you read the link I posted? :P

Yeah. Way to put words into my mouth. Wtg! :thumbsup: Erm... The one where a man can't force a woman to be a mother to a child she doesn't want, but a woman can force a man to be a father (Or, at the very least, accountable) to a child he doesn't want. Dubay v. Wells, for starters. ...Yes, because, only men are physically and mentally abusive and things like male rape/battery aren't underreported because of the negative stigma attached to them. If you really believe that, then I should introduce you to my ex.

Why alimony is stupid and should have been done away with decades ago Women are 1/4th as likely to commit suicide as men Who says women can't be deadbeats? Women fare better than men in college Women rape men, too Edit: Okay. Now I think that's it :

Like, really. I'd rather get paid fairly than have people open doors for me to be honest. And when did someone say that the pay is the only argument for feminism? I'm not talking about holding the doors open for women. I'm talking about supporting programs from the 1920's/1930's which, more often than not, work out in favor of women, a heavily biased child support system which favors women (Even though a greater percentage of woman fail to pay child support than men), the double standard in "reproductive rights" and the outcry from women's rights groups (Such as NOW) whenever a man demands the same protections under the law that women receive. Of course, said groups also ignore things like men having a higher suicide rate than women, or that 10% of rapists are women or even that women generally receive a better education than their male counterparts. :wall:

Like, really.

If the only argument for feminism in its present form that people have is "woman get paid less than men", then I'd suggest you stop arguing, as there are about a bazillion double-standards that work in favor of women.

The only feminazis I hate are the members of NOW.

No, but you support abortions, which means you have to answer the question. Parents know best in the context of raising their children. Abortion negates that entire saying, though, as it prevents the child from being born. There is nothing ridiculous about my question. It asks how you know whether or not someone else would want to live their life without giving them the chance to decide for themselves? So, you're discriminating against a fetus based on age? Does that mean a sixty year old has the right to decide the fate of a three year old on the basis that the sixty year old has twenty times the life experiences of the three year old? Sure, that question is a bit facetious, but it gets the point across. Suicide involves the termination of your own life. Abortion involves the termination of the life of another. Surely, you can see the difference? Life doesn't begin after birth and your example doesn't make any sense in the context of abortion. Condoms have a warning on them which state that they're not 100% effective. She should have read the warnings. Only abstinence in 100% effective at preventing pregnancy (Well, so is anal lol). If you don't want to do either of those two things, then you should accept the fact that there is a risk of pregnancy.

No, thats why they need to maintain or create medical exeptions for severe medical problems. Yeah, and the partial birth abortion bans don't do that, but the FOCA does. They don't take into account the health of the mother. Even John McCain ridicules women's health like it doesn't matter: First of all, like 2% of all abortions are partial birth abortions (Or something like that), so ignoring the other 98% is rather disingenuous. Oh, and I said this earlier, but virtually no one is stating a woman gives birth if it's going to kill her or if she was raped. So, therefore, FOCA is useless in that regard.

You do realize that in the process of chasing your own proverbial tail, you never got around to answering the question, right? All you've done is say that you should have that choice, which we've already established you believe you should have, but have never tried bothering to explain who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth living. So... Answer the question? :P But, just because I'll answer your question. It seems to me your position is that a woman's "choice" should be invoked after the fact. Never before it. My position is that a woman's "choice" should be evoked before the fact, never after it unless she wasn't given a "choice" prior to the act to begin with (Rape). Now, if you argue that a woman's "choice" occurs after pregnancy, any "choice" she makes is paramount to a fetus' right to live and/or assumes that a fetus' life is not worth living (Which you have yet to explain). However, I do not make that claim. I claim that a fetus' right to live is contingent on the "choice" she makes to engage in sex (If that fetus later decides it's life is not worth living, then it can choose to terminate it's own life). Since she actively makes the decision to participate in sex, then she actively granted that fetus the right to live and the right to decide it's own fate-- A right, which cannot be rescinded unless not doing so would result in the woman's death.

I did answer it. Here it is again: How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place. You want the answer? Here's the answer: Because we can. Since ALL the other answers weren't good for you, we're all Satanic death lovers. I'm fairly sure this is a path you don't want to go down, so I'll let you change your answer. Because I'm nice. Edit: Oh, and "All the other answers" being one.

I did answer it. Here it is again: How does that answer my question? It doesn't. Hell, it doesn't even address my question. I specifically asked who you were to decide whether or not someone else's life was worth living. Responding with "It's a choice which should be there" is just a reiteration of the reason I asked the question in the first place.

Ummm yeah... I'm thinking you're not reading. So, stated once again, no where did I state or imply that you were okay with murder. I asked you a question, which you somehow misconstrued as an ad hominem (How? I'll never know). Plus, you never got around to answering my question. *facepalm* Stay with me here. If you say it's okay to abort a fetus because it it contains limited "cognitive functions", yet it takes approximately two years (I've actually heard it's three, but we'll go with two) to develop significant, or even full, "cognitive functions", then you should be okay with killing a three month old because it does not contain the "cognitive functions" required in order to be human. That was the gist of my original argument. That's the gist of Peter Singer's argument for infanticide. That's the gist of the argument you unknowingly put forward. So, with that being said, I ask you the question again: "Why is it wrong to kill a three month old for the exact same reasons you would kill a fetus?". Go ahead and humor me with a rebuttal. It should be interesting, to say the least. Wait, what? So, I can relegate any issue to one of personal morality? If that's the case, then why don't I have the right to decide to kill people at my leisure? You do realize that very few people will actually deny a woman access to an abortion if she's going to die otherwise or was raped, right? And you do realize that things such as ectopic pregnancies and rape account for, like, next to nothing when it comes for the reasons behind having an abortion, right? The overwhelming responses given are those of purely elective reasons (i.e., "I don't want children right now" or "I'm not mentally ready to have a child" or "I can't afford a child", etc.). How did you find that statistic? I did a quick search and it appears that the Northern Territory does not publish abortion statistics. What is this? Answer a question with a question day? How about you answer the question I asked you first before trying to pose any questions yourself?

*Ahem* Yeah... No. But thanks for playing. I asked the difference in choosing to kill a three month old and killing a fetus while using the same reasoning for both circumstances. No ad hominem anywhere in that question. People really shouldn't terms they don't understand. Remember when I asked to make your reasoning somewhat scientific? Of course not, because you didn't. It's a well-known and generally accepted principle that newborns contain extremely limited "cognitive functions", far below those of a "normal" (My word) human, so therefore you should be perfectly comfortable with infanticide (See: Peter Singer's argument for abortion and infanticide). Of course, that's a purely philosophical argument, but seeing as how you love to rely on philosophical arguments, and not scientific ones, I thought I'd just throw that one out there for you to mull over. (: Obviously, it can't be too hard of a "choice" considering that more than one in five pregnancies end in abortion (In Australia. 21.3% of pregnancies as of 2006, to be exact) and a little less than half of abortions performed are performed on women who already obtained one prior. ...Oh, and nowhere did I call anyone a murderer. Nice try, though. I'm not sure what you're reading but it says that, as I quote verbatim, "Klerman estimates that making abortion illegal would increase white fertility by an additional 3 percent, still below replacement levels". Unless only whites now have abortions, I would say that's kind of a "No duh!" type answer. They might make up the majority of the population, but they don't make up the majority of abortions performed (I think) :P Furthermore, 2% and 10% drops are substantial in the fertility rate. Since the replacement rate is approximately 2.1, and most industrialized countries float right around that cusp, I wonder how you came to the conclusion that they aren't (For example, Britain replacement rate is something like 2.075. Any kind of change would be significant one way or the other)? So ummm... Explain to me again who are you to decide whether or not someone else's life is worth them living or not?

Answering a question with a question. Very nice. /sarcasm Even though you didn't even attempt to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Choosing who lives and dies is not a "right" by any sense of the word. Let's just throw out the whole fetus thing for a moment and assume we have a three month old baby. If the parents decide they no longer want-- Actually, scratch that-- If the parents decide they can longer afford to have that child, would you support their right to kill it? That is, after all, they're "choice". If you say no, then I'd love to know the standards by which you assume the "choice" to kill a three month old is less so than the "choice" to kill a fetus for the same reasoning. Oh, and try to make the standards somewhat scientific. Yeah, allusions to China and/or Russia don't work too well. How about forming an actual response? *Refer to the question at the top* Sweeping generalizations. Also very nice. /heavysarcasm I hate the "Who are you to impose your morality on others!" line, because it's idiotic. That's exactly what society, and the laws it implements, aims to do. If I suddenly decide that I like killing people and I go on a mass killing spree, I can guarantee you that the whole "Who are you to impose your morality on me!" spiel will fall on deaf ears, because it's nothing more than a feeble attempt at ignoring responsibility by claiming that what applies to others shouldn't, and doesn't, apply to you.

*Sigh* People/humans/whatever you want to call them are not animals nor plants. Why do people continue to engage in these non-sequiturs? (And since some smart aleck is gonna' be all like "Humans are animals!", I'd like to point out that humans are under the kingdom Animalia, but animals generally refer to those non-human, non-plant, non-dinosaur, non-aquatic [usually] species). So who are you to decide for them whether or not their life is worth living? That is a decision which should be left up to the individual.

That your distinction based on whether or not how well a group's actions as received to be the defining point of whether or not they're pro- something or anti- another to be rather, well, pointless. Wait... So if you own a business which is being financed by the bank, and the bank suddenly says you have to do something you find highly unethical and morally wrong, you would do it in order to please your pre-existing customers? I really don't think so. If the powers that be want to legalize FOCA, overturning already standing "conscious" provisions which allow Catholic hospitals to receive federal funding without being required to perform abortions, then they do so knowing the risk of Catholic hospitals closing their doors. Instead of being mad at those people who refuse to stray from their principles, perhaps the anger would be better directed towards those people who want mandate abortions on demand? ...Naw. That'd be, like, sensible, so you can't do that.

Well, pardon me while I go tell the women, the gays, the blacks and just about every other minority group who has ever engaged in unpopular political activism (Marches, sit-ins, protests. You name it) that they really weren't pro- anything, but rather anti- something else, seeing as how they were doing nothing but perpetuating hate and hostility towards their cause. And, just so you know, Catholic hospitals choosing to close down their doors rather than violating their principles is a peaceful solution. You have an odd definition of the word peaceful.

I'm p*ssed. I wanted to see names of the banned :(

I've seen that page before and have referenced it elsewhere. But you seemed to miss this in the article: That states that there is a negative correlation between abortion and the fertility rate. That is, abortion lessens it. Oh, and here's something else :P Link

:shock: an economic basis for outlawing abortion(to an extent), you sir are amazing. Not just an economic basis. See the whole "killing those who cannot speak for themselves" part :P

I didn't ignore anything. You, apparently, don't understand what cultural relativism entails. Cultural relativism does not say that whatever goes on in a culture is "right" or "wrong", but that by virtue of living in a different era we cannot label the actions of a culture as "right" or "wrong". Bringing up the ancient Greeks or Inuits is an irrelevancy, as we're not talking about what other people did at another period of time, rather we're talking about what we're doing today. What is going on today is not contingent on what other people have done in the past. Human development? I'm guessing that's a fancy way of saying "It's not human yet!", which I find to be a rather disingenuous argument. If it's not human, then what is it? Something which isn't human doesn't become a human. There is nothing else it can be. If something is a human today, then it was in it's fundamental nature to be a human from the beginning, meaning it's always been a human. We're human beings, not human becomings. We don't grow into humans-- We're made that way. Killing those who cannot speak for themselves while decreasing the fertility rate, ultimately plunging the replacement rate less than what's sustainable, therefore lessening overall productivity and forcing tomorrow's children to be unfairly burdened with disproportionate social security payments, is my business (See: Japan and Europe). In fact, it's everyone's business who lives in those countries.

??? Because we don't live in ancient Greece nor are Inuits. First of all, zygotes are alive. Second of all, people only attempt to make a meaningful distinction between a zygote/fetus and a baby when they're attempting to pass of the former as either being "less alive" or "less human" than the latter, even though there is no rational basis upon which to do this. There is no stage of the developmental process where you can claim as much. It's disingenuous to assert so, at best. Well... That's because all living organisms look the same in the zygote/early embryonic phase. So you're okay with infanticide so long as the person in question is under one?

Deliberately bug abuse and you get banned. This was established waaay back in '01.