Testing out the new sig and avatar

Was it socialism for prohibition to exist and take away the choice to drink?

Essentially, yes. We tried prohibition, and it failed.

And abortion is painless? You also wouldn't be forcing the mother to do anything that she shouldn't have been prepared for at the beginning. What can I say? I'm narrow minded.

I didn't say abortion wasn't painless. I'm saying that the mother makes that decision. Getting pregnant could have been an accident. You can wag your finger at them all you want, but frowning upon them and potentially ruining their lives are two different things. Unless you have a very large finger.

The government isn't the one making women pregnant. They chose to sleep with someone. If they didn't want to have a child then they shouldn't have done that. They have the right to choose not to get pregnant, they shouldn't have the right to choose to murder a child.

Yes, if s.ex was used only for procreation, then you'd be right. Because we don't live in a completely sterile theocracy, it isn't used for that sole purpose. And, as I've said, If I saw a two inch piece of flesh and underdeveloped... everything, I wouldn't classify it as a human, by any means. Since most abortions occur before 12 weeks, that's what we're looking at. A 2" lump of underdeveloped cells that has "potential". Just because a student has potential, doesn't mean you can't fail them.

S*x is for reproducing, if they don't want to have a child they should find some other form of entertainment.

And if that 2" lump of underdeveloped cells have a spirit then they have been given life from God and therefore deserve to live.

But who are you to tell people how to have fun? If they want to do it for that matter, it's their decision. I would bet you're against gay marriage, as well. People's personal decisions should remain that; their personal decision.

Not everybody believes that. Not everybody believes in a god, for that matter, let alone yours. What about deer, though? Animals? Did the Christian god not create them in the story, as well? Do animals have spirit? And are you against hunting? If this is going to turn into a religion debate, I'll be glad to do that in a different topic with you, I just don't think that should be discussed here in order to stay on topic.

Though I certainly must add that America is a secular society. If your only reason to be against abortion is your religion, that's not really up to par.

P.S. I'll use as many words and as much redundancy as I see fit to get my point across. If you're too lazy to read my post, don't.

1. Alot of people think Graffiti is fun, yet that is illegal. Maybe some people think murdering, stealing, and brutally beating foreigners is fun too. Yet all of those things are illegal. Just because there are laws against immoral things doesn't mean its socialistic.
2. America is a secular society? Is that why "In God we trust" is printed on every coin? And "One nation under God" is in the pledge of allegiance? Anyway your right, no religious debating, so I'm done.
3. Whats with all the hostility?? My signature was simply a joke. I didn't know I would get yelled at for sarcasm. My sig was hyprocritical in every way, obviously I didn't actually care about redundency if the signature itself was redundent.

Note that all of those things hurt other people, outside of the control of the original person. As I've said, I don't consider a baby a human in the first trimester, therefore the only person being hurt by abortion would be the mother, potentially. It's same in the sense that tattoos aren't illegal.

The pledge and money wasn't always like that. In fact, those slogans were only added during the "red scare" when America was afraid of "Godless Communist Russians". Also, there is quite a lot of opposition to that. I cross out the "God" on my money, and I'm not the only one.

I suppose I didn't get the joke though, in my defence, it was odd timing. I make a post with a certain amount of redundancy and your signature changes... Sorro. No hostility here.

"all of those things hurt other people"


under strict observation of the brain waves, heart, ect. it has been seen that a child can actually feel the pain of an abortion.


point made.

By the end of 12 weeks that "2" lump of underdevoloped cells" as you described it, not only has a heart but can also feel pain.

"Biology is crystal clear that at the moment of conception, a unique, organism comes into existence. Since this new life possesses human DNA and is the offspring of human parents, it can legitimately only be described as human life."

"A baby's heart begins to beat 18 days from conception, and by 21 days the heart is pumping blood through a closed circulatory system.
At 4 weeks from conception, a baby's eye, ear, and respiratory systems begin to form.
A baby's brainwaves can be detected at 6 weeks from conception.
Thumbsucking has been documented at 7 weeks from conception.
At 8 weeks from conception, a baby's heartbeat can be detected by ultrasonic stethoscope.
By 9 weeks from conception, all the structures necessary for pain sensation are functioning.
By 9 weeks from conception, a baby is able to bend her fingers around an object in her hand.
By 11 to 12 weeks from conception, the baby is breathing fluid steadily and continues to do so until birth.
By 11 weeks from conception, a baby can swallow.
Between 13 and 15 weeks from conception, a baby's taste buds are present and functioning.
At 20 weeks, and perhaps as early as 16 weeks from conception, a baby is capable of hearing his mother's heartbeat and external noises like music.
At 23 weeks from conception, babies have been shown to demonstrate rapid eye movements (REM), which are characteristic of active dream states."

- http://prolifeaction.org/faq/unborn.htm

It's a pro-life website with a picture of Jesus. I'll be honest; it doesn't look very unbiased.

However, my points...

Some pro-choicers note that a zygote has no limbs; no head; no brain; no ability to see, hear, smell, taste or touch; no internal organs, no self-consciousness, no ability to think, reason, sense its environment, etc. Even at the age of one month, a human embryo cannot be distinguished from the embryo of a cat or dog. They might argue that four things make us human persons: awareness of the environment, the ability to think, a moral sense, and physical appearance. The zygote exhibits none of these. It is closer to a doll than a human person.

Also, I should note that

16 weeks: Fetal movement, often called quickening, is usually detectable by this point in pregnancy. It is apparently an involuntary movement of arms and legs. At this stage in gestation, the brain is not developed to the point where the fetus is conscious.

That's about four months in, About 4 weeks past the first trimester, when most abortions take place.

Finally,

At 26 weeks or later, when the fetal brain's higher functions become operational. Scientists have: " measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming at 8 months gestation." Carl Sagan discusses this point in his final book. He suggests that the one factor that is uniquely human is our ability to think. Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month.

--http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when10.htm

Also, you didn't respond to my post really at all.

So you used a biased site to go against my biased site? Seems kinda hypocritical to me.

Do you think that 1st trimester abortions are fine but after that its not? Because thats what it sounds like your saying, I just want a little clearity on your views.

And I thought Sammy responded to your post?

No, religioustolerance is a non-biased website. The site has both views on it, I only quoted the part relevant to my argument.

I think after the second trimester it may be wrong, but definitely shouldn't be illegal.

the very name of the site show's that it is biased. and thats like saying its ok to kill a mentally incapable person but not a normal person, because a mentally incapable person isn't up to the 'standards' of normal humans.

Mentally incapable? You mean retards?

And if you observed the content of the site, perhaps you would see that it's a non-biased site. Don't judge a book by it's cover...

your words reflect the state of your heart.

and i did observe the site, i still beleive it is biased, and no i did not mean 'retards' i meant anyone that doesnt live up to your standards, ppl in a coma, people that have become vegetables because of car crashes, autism, schitzofrenia, alzheimers, what about them?

I didn't say that. I said...

Thus we become persons when the cerebral cortex is in place and "large-scale linking up of neurons" begins. This does not start until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy -- the sixth month.

>>24th to 27th week of pregnancy
Retards, people in comas, and so forth have been born, right?

i was using it as an example of ppl not up to normal human standards. most people who beleive in abortion also beleive in required uthination

Sure, and while I don't believe in euthanasia, I do think that they should be "fixed" so as to not pass on the gene, such as autism.

so noone with autism can have kids, even though ppl with autism can live entirely normal lives, your going to demand that every person is required to not have children that has a mental disablity. the snowball effect will soon have it that anyone who's not a genius can't have kids and those with IQ's high enough are FORCED to give eggs and sperm to plant embrios.

No, the snowball effect doesn't have to happen. But yes, I don't think that people with mental disorders should be able to reproduce. It's for the good of the children.

who are you to decide childrens fate? who are you to determine peoples entire lives? if we go with that there will BE no children. you have no right to decide that for people, that is why we continue with medical advanced to help people, and not ALL mental difficulties are passed on, genes can skip generations. You have no right to tell a person that they don't deserve a child because their autistic.

Who are you to take away the decision from the mother?

And I'm not deciding their entire lives, I'm simply stating that it would be better for the children and the good of humanity to not let those with genetic mental disabilities that can be passed on reproduce.

Autistic diseases are at 1 in 100 kids. That's a problem. If you get quarantined when you have a spreadable disease in order to prevent you spreading it, like the chickenpox outbreak or the plague. Why don't we genetically quarantine retards if they could spread their disease to their children?

Okay; I know I'm really late on this topic, but I just wanted to point out one thing about the autism gene. If you have a sibling with autism, or any other mental illness, like I do, you more than likely carry that gene. So, if everyone who carries a gene like that were to be fixed, more than 35 percent of Americas population, both men and women, would no longer be able to conceive. Is that what we want? That's certainly not what I had in mind for my future.

&&I would also like to point out that genetics are not the only factor contributing to autism. What about vaccinations? In the US today, children get a total of 35 shots before they turn 5. Does that sound right? They give a 25 baby the EXACT same shot, with the exact same amount of ingredients as they would a 400 pound man. That doesn't seem safe. PM me for more.

Just point out as i said before, they ARE developing technology that is used to eliminate a gene such as autism in a developing baby, its already available in california (although they mostly use it for 'designing your own baby') it is possible, and while some of those vaccines are very helpful to a baby, you should never give ANY child a vaccine that hasn't been used on humans for at least 3 years, exm. why, a lyme disease vaccine came out (i focus on that because i've had lyme since i was two) it seemed to work at first, but about 2 years down the line, most people who had the vaccine developed lyme disease because of it. vaccines most of the time are literally injecting the disease into you so you develop an immunity, thats why lots of ppl get a minor flu after the flu vaccine.

Mrs.ChristoferDrew. wrote:&&I would also like to point out that genetics are not the only factor contributing to autism. What about vaccinations? In the US today, children get a total of 35 shots before they turn 5. Does that sound right? They give a 25 baby the EXACT same shot, with the exact same amount of ingredients as they would a 400 pound man. That doesn't seem safe. PM me for more.

FINALLY! Yes. EXACTLY. You are absolutely right here. People don't get it enough. Vaccines cause problems. And the medical field makes money off of it, and people are generally too ignorant to see that there is more to the situation than what seems. That, or they just don't care. But yeah. See.

Congratulations, may I please have your full name(s) so I may write out your google degree(s) in confirmation bias?

Someone agrees with me about vaccines? I think I am going to faint.
I live with proof. My brother Jakob was completely normal until he got his fifteen month shots. Then he changed. Now, he is moderately autistic, and has slight mental retardation. So, this whole debate about vaccines is close to my heart.

&&@ Limetiger, Haha. I have my degree in Google research!