Abortion and Handguns

[Aeryn]

Has this been done? I hope not.

Okay, how do you feel about abortion? Do you believe that a fetus is alive from the point of conception, or that it's alive sometimes through term, OR that the "fetus" is only alive when it is considered a "baby"? (this is relevant) With that answer, than how do you rationalize Abortion? Or feel about it? (to be politacally correct)
(I am against it. It is murder. Thank you.)

(I am biased about the handgun issue, won't talk about it now)
Are you against Handguns? Do you want them outlawed? Why?

(My guesstimation is that the people who are for abortion are against handguns, also that the people who are either for evolution or are catholic (the major percentage. Not all of you!:)) will be the people for abortion and against handguns)

What I don't get, is that people who are for abortion are so gung-ho about killing innocent little er "beings" but against having protection in your home from intruders. What are you gunna do when the big bad burglar murders your spouse (gf, parents, etc) and rapes your kids ? Chew him to death? Threaten to call the police? :rolleyes:

NO FLAMING!
Keep this civil, express your opinions without being hurtful to others...especially moi. :D

[Mirahzi]

Originally posted by Aeryn
Has this been done? I hope not.
What I don't get, is that people who are for abortion are so gung-ho about killing innocent little er "beings" but against having protection in your home from intruders. What are you gunna do when the big bad burglar murders your spouse (gf, parents, etc) and rapes your kids ? Chew him to death? Threaten to call the police? :rolleyes:
I don't think the pro-choice standpoint is about killing unborn babies; rather, giving the women a choice in how they run their life. If the baby isn't wanted, what's the point of bringing it into the world? Kind of goes back to Euthanasia, or mercy-killings.

Originally being from Texas, I'm well accustomed to the idea of owning guns. My family or I never posessed one, but most of our close friends did. I think it's acceptable to own a gun as long as you're mentally capable and prepared for the responsibilities that come with it.

[Menelvagor]

I'm for abortion and handguns. People should decide what to do with their lives, if they don't want a baby, they shouldn't be forced to, and if they feel they need protection, they should get it. Granted both should be used responsibly, but for most cases, i think we should just let people livve their own lives.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, I think there is an abortion thread around somewhere. Not sure though.

I am pro-choice.

As for guns, well, in New Zealand it is not so much of an issue, so I don't really have anything to contribute... Although... A farmer in the far north (of the Nth Is.) shot at a couple of guys who were driving off with his farm bike in the back of their ute (he was aiming for the tires), and the bullet ricocheted off something, and shot one of the thugs. The farmer is currently being tried for intent to cause grievious bodily harm (the guy survived.) In this case, I'm on the side of the farmer, because being in such an isolated area, where it takes HOURS for the police to come, I think it is essential to keep yourself and your family safe; if it happens to need guns, then so be it.

[crickhollow]

I'm anti-death when it comes to the abortion issue (nothing wrong with a little antagonism! :D ), but I also support the second amendment

[jerseydevil]

I support abortion up to a point. I'm against partial birth abortions though - unless the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother. I see absolutely no problem with the morning after pill (http://sexuality.about.com/library/weekly/aa011501.htm?once=true&) (which is different from RU-486 (http://www.cbctrust.com/RU486.96.html))

I support hand guns. Even the snipers got around the gun laws. Criminals will get guns regardless and people should have a right to protect themselves. In addition it's our right to bear arms under the Constitution. By the way - growing up we never had guns and I have never had a gun - although I have shot them a couple of times.

[emplynx]

ABORTION IS MURDER!
More to come later.

[Dunadan]

oh no it isn't

[Elven Archer]

I think the abortion thread has been done.

I think abortion is murder because according to the Bible it's a living person from the time of conception. I've seen pictures of aborted babies and how can you not think those used to be alive?and it's just digusting some of the ways they abort them. I think it's ridiculas that you can jsut get an abortion no matter how old you are without any kind of permission by your parents. but you do have to get permission to get tattoos and stuff. my cousin knew a bunch of girls who got pregnant real young and wanted to keep the baby but their parents made them get an abortion. they're a little messed up in the head because of it. I dont' see how you can think a "fetus" isn't alive if it's growing the whole while. also what i don't get and i might be wrong about, alot of the people who don't want the death penalty are for abortion.

I support hand guns. Even the snipers got around the gun laws. Criminals will get guns regardless and people should have a right to protect themselves. In addition it's our right to bear arms under the Constitution. By the way - growing up we never had guns and I have never had a gun - although I have shot them a couple of times. that pretty much sums up what i was going to say without saying it. although i've grown up(still growing) around guns.before i was born my dad bought all my brothers and sisters some bb guns and he bought me one too and that was way before i was born.or either that he bought us pocket knives before i was born and then bought the guns a little after i was born. ANYWAY i've had a gun since before i can remember and there's always been guns in the house and me or my brothers and sisters have ever shot ourselves with em'.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Elven Archer
I think abortion is murder because according to the Bible it's a living person from the time of conception. I've seen pictures of aborted babies and how can you not think those used to be alive?and it's just digusting some of the ways they abort them.

For at least half of the first trimester - it is hard for the human eye to even see the fetus. Do you have any idea what a "fetus" is at the time of conception? I agree that once a fetus goes past the first trimester - it should not be aborted unless the mother's life is in danger.
A month-by-month guide to your pregnancy (http://www.parenting.com/parenting/article/article_general/0,8266,147,00.html)

I think it's ridiculas that you can jsut get an abortion no matter how old you are without any kind of permission by your parents. but you do have to get permission to get tattoos and stuff. my cousin knew a bunch of girls who got pregnant real young and wanted to keep the baby but their parents made them get an abortion. they're a little messed up in the head because of it.

Parental consent is a state issue. I don't know which state you live in - but all states have their own laws governing abortion.


State Abortion Laws (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/abortl.htm)
Though Roe, Doe and Casey limit the power of states to regulate or ban abortion, nearly every state has some sort of law limiting abortion. About 4/5 ban non-therapeutic abortion in the last three months of pregnancy. Many have parental notice or consent laws for minors, waiting periods, informed consent and statistical reporting requirements for all abortions.


I dont' see how you can think a "fetus" isn't alive if it's growing the whole while. also what i don't get and i might be wrong about, alot of the people who don't want the death penalty are for abortion.

Well i support both the death penalty and abortion with restrictions. I don't think that the government should fund abortions.

[katya]

i am against abortion but i guess the mother should have the right to have one if she must. i mean if shes going to anyway its better to do it in a hostpital instead of in some alley somewhere.

i am not sure about handguns i think that we should have them but i am also afraid of misuse and also suicide. think about it. if you want to kill yourself really badly you are going to find a way, but having a gun laying around only makes it that much easier, and waiting to get one just gives you one more day to think it over and change your mind. i do like shooting guns though a lot. just not at anything living.

by the way: i am catholic, i do not support the death penalty (since that was mentioned)

[Coney]

I'm pro-choice as regards to abortion, especially if the pregnancy is undesired (concieved after a rape attack for example)........if the pregnancy is accidental then both man and woman should be slapped for not having the brains to organise their contraception.

Handguns are a bit of a grey area..........I believe that a person should have the right to protect themselves and their property so easily concealable weapons (pistols I'm thinking here) should be more heavily restricted and rifles permitted.

[Elven Archer]

(concieved after a rape attack for example)

Studies show that it's very rare to actually get pregnant by rape. cause of all the stress and fear and other stuff. i'm not saying it doesn't happen but it's rare.at least I think it was a study that the person who told me got their info from. if your life is endanger i think you should abort the baby if there's not another choice.

this is kinda off the subject , but since it was mentioned it made me think of this, i heard somewhere that it's against the law to commit suicide. well if that's true, it's also against the law to kill someone and if you try but you don't then you get charged with attempt murder, so if you didn't successfully kill yourself would you be charged with attempt suicide? that's if it really is against the law.

[cassiopeia]

I support abortion, up to a certain age of the fetus. I would prefer if people were more responsible, but these things will occur in the real world.

I am totally agaist handguns or anyone owning a gun, except police, farmers and people who need it for thier work. There was recently a shooting at my university, where a student shot dead 2 people and wounded some others. I was not involved and I didn't know anyone who was involved, but it still affected me. I was at university at the time and I remember hearing helicopters flying over. Now I am terrified every time I hear a helicopter. Two people died just because some guy couldn't cope with life. Is that right? Guns suck. :mad:

[Lizra]

I am pro birth control, anti abortion, I'm so used to people having guns, it just doesn't seem like an issue to me.

[Erawyn]

What are you gunna do when the big bad burglar murders your spouse (gf, parents, etc) and rapes your kids ? Chew him to death? Threaten to call the police?
I'm sure you have heard the statistics that a gun in the home is more likely to kill a family member than an intruder so i guess i won't get into that more than I have. I admit that obviosuly intruders do break into houses, but usually not to murder random people, and if you are worried about this, it is my opinion that you are living with a very irrational fear. I do not think that there is any need for guns in our society at all. Very recently a man was shot outside of my school, and lately there has been a whole string of gang related shootings in night clubs in my city, so i have been thinking a lot about this issue lately. I think the negative aspects of having guns far outweigh any "protection" they might offer. Ex. the six year old boy who shot a little girl when he brought a gun to school that he found in his uncles house. The fact that people have a constitutional right to have arms is kind of irrelevant today, as people generally do not own muskets to protect themselves from the British anymore.

Now on to abortion. I bet y'all can guess what i think! I'm totally pro choice, but actually only to a point. While i have not hugely educated myself on the subject, i'm ok with it until a certain time in the pregnancy. I do however believe that a woman should have complete control of her body, and that her life is way more important than the "life" of someone who hasn't been born yet.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Erawyn
The fact that people have a constitutional right to have arms is kind of irrelevant today, as people generally do not own muskets to protect themselves from the British anymore.

Who knows - the war on terrorism may come to our doorstep at some point. If that time comes I will be very thankful that people have guns.

It would be very hard to abolish the 2nd Amendment. We have a different history than you and Americans still have a hard time trusting government. The right to bear arms was not instituted only because of the British - but also because people didn't trust the forming of the US federal government. They wanted assurances that the federal government would not elimate their rights. Today it might be slightly different - but still the feeling is there.

Also - if someone really wants to do damage - just build some bombs. Everyone goes on and on about how many people were killed in the Columbine shootings - but really if you think about it, it's a good thing they had guns. They had the bombs to blow up the cafeteria and other parts of the school. They just chose to use the guns first. If they had used the bombs first - far more people would have died. Don't think that eliminating guns will eliminate or reduce the number of murders.

[Shadowfax]

I am totally, completely AGAINST abortion. Do you people even know what the word "abortion" means? It comes from "abort" which means to "stop"; you are stopping a life. So for all of the people in the world who think that a fetus is nothing but a blob of jelly, it's actually a baby, and when it is aborted, its LIFE is being STOPPED!!

If people do not want to get pregnant, they shouldn't be having sex, or they should be very careful with birth control. If people are not wanting a baby, they shouldn't be having sex.

The most awful, horrific kind of abortion ever is partial-birth abortion. The doctor actually breaks the BABY'S neck as it comes out of the birth canal! If you're gonna push the first half out so the doctor can break its neck, you might as well push the rest of it out too, and at least give the child up for adoption to someone who wants a baby!

And what about the people who were almost aborted but their mother decided to go through with the birth. I know someone like this. Can you imagine looking at someone, anyone, and thinking, oh, so what if they aren't here today, if they were aborted!

Someone said something about it being rare to get pregnant because of rape, and my friend know a girl who this happened to and she kept the child. He is the most precious child ever. How can you kill a child before he or she is born?

That baby that is killed in the womb could have grown up to be an amazing, wonderful person!

The bottom line is, abortion is murder.

And I do not at this time have an opinion on guns.

[Laurelyn]

I would rather be dead than born into a life of hell.
Hence, I'm pro-choice. To a certain point. Shadowfax's description of partial-birth abortion is a bit more than even I could ever support.
As long as nobody kills anybody with handguns except for self-defense, then . . . . Well, how damn likely is that? Not very. My point? They are probably more of a danger than an aid.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Laurelyn
[i]As long as nobody kills anybody with handguns except for self-defense, then . . . . Well, how damn likely is that? Not very. My point? They are probably more of a danger than an aid.
Criminals will still have the guns though.

[Elven Archer]

I admit that obviosuly intruders do break into houses, but usually not to murder random people, and if you are worried about this, it is my opinion that you are living with a very irrational fear

if an armed robber comes into rob your house and you get in his way there's a good chance he's gonna shoot ya, why not be protected? If an armed robber came into my house i wouldn't want to kill him but i'd make sure he couldn't shoot me.
I do however believe that a woman should have complete control of her body, and that her life is way more important than the "life" of someone who hasn't been born yet. it's not just her body, there's a body inside her too. so you should just kill an unborn baby because of a stupid mistake you made(with the exception of rape)?

[Draken]

Abortion? Ah, too complicated, I'll come back to it another time! Certainly too complicated for some of the black-and-white opinions that have been posted...

Gun ownership? Not as clear-cut as it seems. While I think it would be insane for a country with no culture of gun ownership to suddenly permit it, going the other way is a different matter. The huge amount of guns circulating in the USA, for instance, will not disappear overnight. More pragmatically, the NRA is a very, very powerful lobby indeed, I wonder how many presidential candidates would want to tangle with it.

Perhaps the question should be how to stop people who own guns using them to kill people.

According to the ICVS, gun ownership in England and Wales is below 5% (in terms of households). Homicide rates per 100,000 people for England and Wales of 97-99 averaged 1.45.

USA gun ownership was estimated at 48.5% and the corresponding homicide rate was 6.26. Which seems to say something about gun ownership.

But...gun ownership in Canada was estimated at 22% and their homicide rate of 1.85 wasn't that much higher than the England & Wales figure. Swiss gun ownership is about 36%, yet their homicide rate of 1.18 is LESS than many non gun-owning countries.

OK there's all sorts of complications like number of guns per household, handguns v long guns etc, but maybe getting caught up in arguments about quantiies of hardware is the wrong approach.

[emplynx]

So for all you pro-choicers. When does a child go from being a "fetus" to being a "human" and what right do you have to say that?

[Elenka]

I feel like if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one, but let it be a lesson to her. As far as guns are concerned, don't show your kids and don't take it out unless its an absolute emergency and you know how to use it.

[Lizra]

As soon as the egg is fertilized, a living human being begins to grow. If I had aborted either one of my children (at any stage) they would not be here today. Therefor, I feel That abortion is murder. ( I always felt the anti-abortion slogan "It stops a beating heart, to ring true, I can't help it, I'm usually fairly liberal, but hey, it's true!) If you could murder your growing child, that's your call at this time. I could never do this. Free birth control should be easily avaible to all, but abstinence works great too! :) If a woman really wants an abortion, I supose she should be able to get a safe one, but I think people should be more open about what's going on to the new life and the mother. Abortion is very painful, not good for your body, and will probably linger in your mind for the rest of your life. Wouldn't it be easier to use birth controll, and have your sex life "together".
Handguns, People have had guns, rifles etc, in the USA since the beginning. We live in the country and need our rifle for shooting coyotes that try to kill our pets. Also vicious stray dogs come around, racoons that are diseased need to be shot and put out of their misery. My father was in WW2, Vietnam, and Korea. He had an assortment of guns, after spending a lifetime in the military it was a hobby he enjoyed. My husband likes to hunt, and enjoys target practice. I just don't see guns being made illegal in the USA. As someone said, there are way too many for starters, so they just need to make it as difficult as possible for "NUTS" to get a hold of them. It will be impossible to elimate sick people misusing handguns unfortunately. It's not a perfect world. :(

[Renille]

In my ideal world, all handguns are locked up tight when not in use,labeled, and registered. Unfortunately, this isn't my ideal world. But still, I believe guns should be locked against kids. The scene in the "Sixth Sense" involving a ghost of a kid and a gun still scares me slightly.
As for abortion,I'm against it totally. But more later...15 minutes is up.

[Nibs]

I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice in the case of incest and rape. When I talk about abortion, I envision a fetus that has the potential of being born and living life as all of us do. Abortion keeps that from happening. Until more research is done to find out when the child is truly alive, it will be alive when the law says so. I'm not one to say that abortion is murder in the strict sense of the word, but I would have a difficult time living with that decision, were I in the position to have done so.

As for firearms, I think more action towards teaching people about safe use would benefit more than stiffer regulations. Perhaps an elementary school-aimed program to teach children about safety and precaustion when using such things. Could avert many an unfortunate death.

Seems kinda funny... I recall having behavior-health classes similar in nature, except to avert the first travesty.

[sun-star]

I think abortion is wrong, but sometimes, unfortunately, necessary. I feel uncomfortable making a judgement on this topic, however, because I can't be at all sure I would stick to the views I can so glibly explain here if I were really in that situation. I hope so, but I don't know. So no further comment.

On handguns, I don't quite understand how it can be right (or a right) to possess a gun for self-defence, but not for attacking someone else. It's not always a simple distinction. At least if guns are against the law and someone has one (or has one without a licence), you know they don't own it for peaceful purposes because they've broken the law to get it. Whether it's feasible to ban handguns entirely or not is another matter.

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Nibs
I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice in the case of incest and rape.
Quite a lot of people seem to have this view.

I wondered why it is different if there's been incest or rape involved. Presumably you're anti-abortion because the foetus has human rights, which take precedence over the mother's rights to decide what to do with her body.

Now, I would assume that either the foetus has these rights, or it hasn't. There's no sense in which it ever stops having these rights just because circumstances are different.

So it seems to me that you're saying the mother's rights not to have to bear a child after being raped takes precedence over the foetus's right not to be killed. If so, why?

cheers

d.

[elvendrummer87]

I am TOTALLY against abortion! I know people have said it before, but that fetus isn't just a fetus , it's a life ! I try (though not always succesful) to live by the rule "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." You wouldn't be around today if your mother had decided that she didn't want you then. If you don't want the responsibility of a kid, then you shouldn't be having sex in the first place.

[Comic Book Guy]

Legalised firearms in N.I? I enjoy being able to walk outside thank you very much.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by Elenka
I feel like if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one, but let it be a lesson to her.

Erawyn, I feel that that wasnt a thought out comment, or at least a comment not made out of experience. Do you know anyone who has had an abortion? I know two girls, one being my cousin, and the other a school friend. Not only this but they have had them SEVERAL times. they can't keep their legs together.During the first pregnancy if they had decided to keep it, or at least give it up, I doubt there would have been a second abortion. Studies show that someone who has an abortion, is more likely to have another abortion than not to. What does that say to you? Teens are sex fiends? No, it says young girls/and women don't "learn a lesson"!

It is in a persons nature to choose the easy way out.


*enough with the rant*

[BeardofPants]

Aeryn? Have you actually been through an abortion? I would hardly say that it is an easy decision for ANY woman to make. I had to stand by a friend's decision to have a termination, and she just about had a mental breakdown! And the next time she fell pregnant, she decided to keep it. Please don't generalise like that. Not every woman is a serial abortionist.

[Aeryn]

Serial abortionist? I like that, I'll use that in my next rant. Well BoP studies are generalization. And for the sake of expressing my point I used one. *shrug*

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by Aeryn
Studies show that someone who has an abortion, is more likely to have another abortion than not to.
All that shows is that if you think that abortion is acceptable, you are more likely to have an abortion than if you don't. Hardly earth-shattering news there.:rolleyes:

[Lizra]

I've know women who have used abortion as birth control, I've also known women who have agonized, and cried over the decision, the pain, and the ramifications the abortion had on their reproductive systems. Both "birth control" women were the types that would rather die than have someone tell them what to do, (no matter if it was good advice or bad, just rebellion ruled their life) and both also were in very loose, wild phases of their lives concerning sex, and drugs and drink. I guess you either care or you don't, I don't know???? My point is that birth control is so much easier. I've used the pill, (simple), an IUD, (rather painful), the shot, (Depra-provera, easiest by far)and the sponge,(they took it off the market). All worked, all kept me out of the abortion dilemma!! whewwww! I would have an unwanted child and give it up for adoption. I would never want "that" ( killing, stopping whatever you call ending a life) on my conscience. I would NEVER have peace of mind again. Remember, (IMO) premarital sex is pretty much overrated, and not worth all the grief an unwanted pregnancy might cause. Sorry if I sound preachy, just the voice of experience hoping to shed some light! :)

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Dunadan
So it seems to me that you're saying the mother's rights not to have to bear a child after being raped takes precedence over the foetus's right not to be killed. If so, why?

Good question.

The mother in question never made the decision to have intercourse with the father. I think she shouldn't be forced to live with the decision that man made that caused her to be burdened with the child. The choice should be up to her.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Nibs
Good question.

The mother in question never made the decision to have intercourse with the father. I think she shouldn't be forced to live with the decision that man made that caused her to be burdened with the child. The choice should be up to her.

That can only be true if you consider the fetus to be a non-person. If you consider this to be an unborn child, as I do, then clearly one person's right to life is more important than another's right to "not be burdened" with a baby (and there's always adoption, anyway). Besides, rape is not the unborn child's fault!

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Silverstripe
That can only be true if you consider the fetus to be a non-person.
Not necessarily.
Originally posted by Silverstripe
Besides, rape is not the unborn child's fault! [/B]
Nor is it the mother's.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Nibs
Nor is it the mother's.
Unless she knew of the danger she was putting herself into and it could have been prevented.

[Nibs]

That's where it could get confusing.

[Starr Polish]

I'd say it gets confusing far before that, and complicated as well.

My standings on both issues are probably obvious. Against abortion and gun control.

[BeardofPants]

I still wouldn't say that it was the victim's fault that she got raped. Even if she was careless about her safety. It's a little bit different being careless and cutting yourself with a knife, and being careless and getting raped. It is NEVER the victim's fault.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Unless she knew of the danger she was putting herself into and it could have been prevented.

I can't believe you're using "let's blame the victim". Sorry but NO ONE asks to be raped. If a person goes to a frat party and something is put into their drink - does that fall into "putting herself into danger". Is walking late at night through empty sections of Central Park " knowingly putting herself in danger"? Doesn't everything we do knowingly put ourselves in danger? Everytime I get in my car I must know that I may get into a car accident that can either kill me or seriously injure me - is it still my fault then????

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Nibs
Not necessarily.

Nor is it the mother's.

What did you mean by "not necessarily?" I could perhaps agree with that, from a purely legal standpoint, if you meant that it depends on what country we're talking about.

I certainly agree that it is not the mother's fault, but if the fetus is a person, then he or she is be a citizen of some country, with all the rights that bestows (At least in most countries. There might be some that have a stricter definition of citizen than simply "person").
The argument I am about to make applies only in the USA. So, everyone: if things are different in your country you are free to say so.

In the US, once a child is born, it is illegal for women to throw their babies away (sometimes literally!) or otherwise murder them. Clearly the baby's right to not be murdered is seen as more important than the mother's right to rid herself of an unwanted child, though the mother may of course put her child up for adoption. There have been cases of teens who didn't know they were pregnant until their baby was born, then killed their child. If the mothers were found out, they were prosecuted for the murder of the baby! Whether the child was a product of rape or not no longer mattered. Therefore, if person born in the US or having US parents = US citizen, and unborn babies are considered persons, abortion should be illegal.

Obviously if you believe that a fetus is not a person things are different.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Starr Polish
Unless she knew of the danger she was putting herself into and it could have been prevented.

What are you talking about? Rape is always the fault of the rapist, not the victim! The woman might have been careless, but that does NOT make the rape her fault.

Just out of curiousity, where are you from?

[Dunadan]

Yeah, no-one ever asks to be raped. God, do people really believe that?

I don't get how being raped makes a difference. Presumably, if abortion is murder, it's murder.

We're all skirting around the issue, which is WHEN a foetus becomes a person. Please tick the box:

[] when it's just jizz
[] when it's fertilised
[] when it's started dividing
[] when it's implanted
[] when it's differentiated a nervous system
[] when it's reached some embryologically sensible developmental milestone to be decided after appropriate consultation with a large and impressive committee of men in white coats and long probes
[] when it's capable of sustaining its life outside the womb
[] when it's born
[] when it's able to buy DVDs

I reckon most folk would go for somewhere between 4th and 7th.

I include the last one because there are some human rights you DON'T have until you reach the legal age of majority. You can't legally make contracts, for example, below this age. So, the point is, we can grow into rights.

[jerseydevil]

[X] when it's differentiated a nervous system

Or sometime between the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Yeah, no-one ever asks to be raped. God, do people really believe that?

I don't get how being raped makes a difference. Presumably, if abortion is murder, it's murder.

We're all skirting around the issue, which is WHEN a foetus becomes a person. Please tick the box:

[] when it's just jizz
[] when it's fertilised
[] when it's started dividing
[] when it's implanted
[] when it's differentiated a nervous system
[] when it's reached some embryologically sensible developmental milestone to be decided after appropriate consultation with a large and impressive committee of men in white coats and long probes
[] when it's capable of sustaining its life outside the womb
[] when it's born
[] when it's able to buy DVDs

I reckon most folk would go for somewhere between 4th and 7th.

I include the last one because there are some human rights you DON'T have until you reach the legal age of majority. You can't legally make contracts, for example, below this age. So, the point is, we can grow into rights.

Sadly, I think there are people out there who truly believe that some women "ask" to be raped. To me that's ridiculous and, frankly, a revolting thought.

The rights that we have to grow into are usually stated, though, aren't they? In almost all cases, I am opposed to abortion (there might be a FEW specific exceptions, but I'd have to know the details of the case), but I would be willing to accept 5, or possibly even 6 ("men in white coats") as a reasonable scientific determination of when personhood is reached.

[markedel]

I don't think the baby is a person until it's born-though late term abortions make me feel uncomfortable. So abortions are good as long as they're regulated. Banning abortions after all causes more problems than it solves anyways. It kills mothers and it makes both people suffer.

[Elven Archer]

It's a person as soon as [] when it's fertilised and how can you think it's not a person untill it's born?????? does it just go blob-person? what about the babies that are born 6 months premature and live?

[emplynx]

"When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out of the same philosopry, it is called rape"
Originally posted by jerseydevil
For at least half of the first trimester - it is hard for the human eye to even see the fetus. I agree with that. But just because I can't see a bacteria, does it mean I'm not killing it if I take medication? Just because you can't see it doesn't mean it's not a human. In this case :) size doesn't matter. If a 200 pounds man loose 50 pounds, does he loose 25% of his personhood.
Originally posted by jerseydevil
I see absolutely no problem with the morning after pill (http://sexuality.about.com/library/weekly/aa011501.htm?once=true&) (which is different from RU-486 (http://www.cbctrust.com/RU486.96.html))
That's similar to saying you don't mind someone being poisened to death, but you don't approve of people's heads being cut off!! It's rediculous!!
Originally posted by Coney
I'm pro-choice as regards to abortion, especially if the pregnancy is undesired So it's ok to kill people if they are undesired? Is that what you're saying?
Originally posted by Erawyn
I do however believe that a woman should have complete control of her body, and that her life is way more important than the "life" of someone who hasn't been born yet.
That's sick to say that a grown adult's life is any more important than a small child's life.
Originally posted by Elenka
I feel like if a woman wants an abortion, she should be able to get one, So if I want to kill someone, should I be allowed to?
Regarding rape with thanks to Randy Alcorn:
Only 3 percent of rape victims get pregnant.
If treated fast enough, the sperm can be stopped from fertalizing the egg and creating a human being.
RAPE IS NEVER THE FAULT OF THE CHILD conceived; the guilty part, not an innocent party, should be punished!!!
"When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out of the same philosopry, it is called rape"!!!!!
--
I'm here to answer any questions anyone has on abortion, and I'm willing to argue this more than the existance of God. Please just hear me out!

[cassiopeia]

I would just like to make some points:

*Any person who thinks that someone who is raped is thier own fault has serious mental problems.

*I believe that a fetus becomes a person when the brain is formed, so I am pro-abortion until that point. I think the brain is developed after the 2nd month, so an abortion up to 2 months of conception is Ok, IMHO.

*If you think abortion is murder, then so is euthanasia and capital punishment.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by emplynx
"When a woman exercises her right to control her own body in total disregard of the body of another human being, it is called abortion. When a man acts out of the same philosopry, it is called rape"

I find that incredibly disturbing. I think it's disgusting that you're equating abortion with rape.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
That's similar to saying you don't mind someone being poisened to death, but you don't approve of people's heads being cut off!! It's rediculous!!
No it's not the same because all the morning after pill does is prevent ovulation. All it does is prevent a required occurence to take place.


The Morning-After Pill (http://sexuality.about.com/library/weekly/aa011501.htm?once=true&)
EC (emergency contraceptive) is actually a series of high-dosage hormone pills, estrogen and progesterone, given in two doses twelve hours apart, as soon as possible after the unprotected intercourse occurred—preferably within 24 hours and no later than 72 hours...

They (Planned Parenthood)state EC only works by preventing ovulation, and insist that there is no evidence that EC prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg, as many pro-lifers claim. To quote, "originally that was thought to be the way it worked ... but researchers who look specifically at the way these drugs act don't think that's the way it works now. In fact, studies in rats say that the dose of hormones needed, per kilogram of body weight, to prevent implantation is far greater than the amount present in EC, which is just four ordinary birth control pills."....

.... studies have shown that EC works by inhibiting ovulation. Studies have also suggested that EC might prevent implantation by altering the endometrium; however, the evidence is mixed and test results have not been definitive. EC may also prevent fertilization or transport of sperm or ova, but no concrete data exists regarding these possible mechanisms. The AMA also states that EC does not interrupt an established pregnancy.....


RU486 causes a miscarriage on an established fetus.

[Coney]

"So it's ok to kill people if they are undesired? Is that what you're saying?"

No.

IMO a foetus does not become a "life" until it is capable of living outside of the mothers body.

If you disagree with that, fine.

I've seen dozens of documentary's regarding orphans, babies abandoned for numerousl reasons........a particular documentary about baby girls left in orphanges, and killed by the Chinese state was horrific. Disabled (both mentally and physically) and heathy children dumped into Romanian orphanages and left to rot will be an image that stays with me for the rest of life. That was proof enough to me that abortion should be an option.

Documentaries from the UK also.
Children abandoned. Hundreds abandoned every year. In telephone boxes, on hospital doorsteps, in railway stations. Abandoned for many different reasons......the babies of drug addicts, teenagers terrified to tell there parents (sometimes not even teenagers. One 11yr old girl delivered her baby herself in a public toilet, they found the baby dead. The girl was found 3 days later, dead in a back-street in London from massive heamorridging)........homeless people often abandon babies, after all, how could they care for them?

A few other scenarios-

A woman in her 50's falls pregnant even tho' she was sterlized years earlier........the doctor tells her that to carry the child may kill both her and the baby.

A woman lives with an alcoholic, every day he kicks the living crap out of her but she doesn't have the guts/will to leave him........she misses a period.....and discovers she is pregnant she daren't leave her husband but she doesn't want her children to go through this life.

A teenage prostitute uses contraception, it fails.........she knows that if she cannot work her pimp will kill her.


Until worldwide humanity automatically become good parents in the advent of someone becoming pregnant then I feel the choice should be available. Millions of families around the world would not even support their children if they were about to become parents, a good friend of mine, Sahir$% is now massively brain damaged because she took an overdose after falling pregnant (she is Hindu and was expected to marry at 18) should she have been more careful regarding becoming pregnant? Yes. Should she have been so terrified of telling her parents that she was pregnant that she tried to kill herself. No..........Should she have been able to have seen her Dr, arrange an abortion and after the abortion (however long it may have taken her to come to terms with the mental implications of the abortion) she could have enjoyed a full, healthy and hopefully happy life without all this stigma and shame that many people feel about this perfectly legal operation thrust upon her..........IMO yes.

Should their be a choice.........yes.

[jerseydevil]

New Jersey's parental notification law regarding abortions is sort of weird. I don't know if any other states have this law written like this or not.

A parent must be informed that their child is planning on getting an abortion. The doctor can tell them or who ever - but they need to be told. If the parent fears for her safety - she can go before a judge to have it waived. The parent can not prevent the abortion though if the teenager wants it.

I sort of have a problem with this - and yet understand it to. The problem is that it is a major procedure and things can go wrong.


Parental Notification for Abortion (http://www.state.nj.us/health/abortion.htm) (Official New Jersey State Health site.)
If you are under the age of 18, pregnant, unmarried, not on active duty in the military, and want to have an abortion, this law requires that a parent be notified; however it does not require you to get permission from your parent.

* You can tell a parent (your guardian, foster parent or custodian may be considered your parent),

OR

* The doctor or clinic will notify a parent,

OR

* You can ask a judge for permission to have an abortion without your parent's knowledge.


The Parental Notification Law (New Jersey) (http://crime.about.com/library/weekly/aa092599.htm)

[Silverstripe]

*If you think abortion is murder, then so is euthanasia and capital punishment. [/B]

That analogy is not accurate! Capital punishment is execution for a CRIME, and in the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the people generally are given a chance to decide that they want to die -- and if they are not, then it IS murder! Abortion is the taking of an innocent young life, and an unborn child can't tell anyone whether he or she would rather die than be born.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Silverstripe
That analogy is not accurate! Capital punishment is execution for a CRIME, and in the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide, the people generally are given a chance to decide that they want to die -- and if they are not, then it IS murder! Abortion is the taking of an innocent young life, and an unborn child can't tell anyone whether he or she would rather die than be born.

Murder is the intentional killing of another human being by another, that is all I am saying. You can't support capital punishment but not abortion if you say abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Murder is the intentional killing of another human being by another, that is all I am saying. You can't support capital punishment but not abortion if you say abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

Yeah you can - because the person that is receiving the capital punsihment has usually done something wong that has given him the death sentence. An unborn child hasn't done anything.

Again - I will state that I support abortion (with restrictions), capital punsihment and euthanasia.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Murder is the intentional killing of another human being by another, that is all I am saying. You can't support capital punishment but not abortion if you say abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

Now, that isn't quite accurate either. Killing another human being in self-defense is not considered murder. And capital punishment, at least where I live (USA), is the killing of a human being who has gotten a trial and has been convicted of murder. In the case of an abortion, the unborn child has NOT been convicted of murder and has NOT gotten a trial. In fact, the unborn baby has no say in the matter at all and cannot even defend himself/herself.
Although they do try to move away from the needle ... but there's nowhere to go ...
Also, even in the case of capital punishment, here we TRY to carry out the death penalty humanely. In the case of abortions, the baby's brains are often sucked out, or lungs filled with acid. As for partial birth abortions, people who support them generally disgust me.
In some ways, I can see the support of abortion by people who don't believe that the fetus is a person, though I think most believe that life begins before birth, even if they do not believe it begins at conception.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Coney
"So it's ok to kill people if they are undesired? Is that what you're saying?"

No.

IMO a foetus does not become a "life" until it is capable of living outside of the mothers body.

If you disagree with that, fine.

I disagree with you, but that particular view does not make me anywhere NEAR as angry as the people who believe that an unborn child is a life -- a person, even -- and seem to feel that it doesn't matter anyway. Personally I think that "living outside the womb" would be a much better legal indicator of personhood than birth is, although I would still be against abortion.

[Dunadan]

"So it's ok to kill people if they are undesired? Is that what you're saying?"

It is really unhelpful to try to twist people's words like that. Of course no-one believes that!

Obviously, you believe that personhood starts at or around conception.

I think that you have to accept that most people actually don't agree with you, and that means that they don't think it's murder.


Yeah, isn't it interesting that the people who are anti-abortion are often pro-capital punishment?

Kill all abortionists with your hand guns!

[Draken]

Originally posted by Silverstripe
Also, even in the case of capital punishment, here we TRY to carry out the death penalty humanely.

Well I'll buy that for lethal injections and lethal gas... but run that electric chair idea past me again...:D

[Laurelyn]

To Draken: ZZZZZT ;D

[emplynx]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
*If you think abortion is murder, then so is euthanasia and capital punishment. Euthanasia is murder. Capital punishment is murder, BUT IT IS MURDER OF CRIMINALS, HUMAN CHILDREN ARN'T CRIMINALS!!!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
Euthanasia is murder. Capital punishment is murder, BUT IT IS MURDER OF CRIMINALS, HUMAN CHILDREN ARN'T CRIMINALS!!!

Why is euthanasia murder when the person is CHOOSING to die? If I get alzhiemers or some debilitating desease or I sit there not knowing where I am and can only stare out the window not knowing even my family around me - please kill me. I've seen too many people deal with alzhiemers.

[Hasty Ent]

I agree with you 100%, jersey devil. I've seen terminally ill people lose all dignity towards the end, and have informed my family that this is not how I want to go.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Why is euthanasia murder when the person is CHOOSING to die? If I get alzhiemers or some debilitating desease or I sit there not knowing where I am and can only stare out the window not knowing even my family around me - please kill me. I've seen too many people deal with alzhiemers.
I realize this isn't a euthanasia thread, but I'll say a little anyway.
This is one of the hardest ethical issues ever. I think it's terrible for people to have to suffer at their old age, but they are still human beings. I was about to say I believe that it's only God's right to end human life, but I can't say that because I support the death penalty. I just don't think life should be ended just because they are suffering.

[Wayfarer]

I am extremely pro choice.

I support the choice to abstain from sexual intercourse.
I support the choice to use a condom.
I support the choice to use a cervical cap .
I support the choice to use a contraceptive sponge.
I support the choice to use a diaphrahm
I support the choice to use a hormone injection
I support the choice to use a hormone implant
I support the choice to use an intrauterine device
I support the choice to use a spermicide
I support the choice to undergo surgical sterilization
I support the choice to prevent impregnation by any other means.

But what I do not, will not, and cannot support is the choice to terminate a pregnancy which results because the parents weren't responsible enough to choose one of the above.

Do you?

[emplynx]

No!! Thanks for joining the conversation Wayfarer. I can with this one!!

[Coney]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
But what I do not, will not, and cannot support is the choice to terminate a pregnancy which results because the parents weren't responsible enough to choose one of the above.

Why?

[Wayfarer]

Let's think about that for a moment, shall we?

A woman is stupid* enough to get pregnant when she doesn't want a baby- but it's ok, we'll ease up on teh consequence by killing the baby. Does that make sense to you?

A woman who doesn't want a baby has the recourse of a whole array of contraceptives. And yet she doesn't use them, and she gets pregnant. But, not willing to accept the consequences of her actions, she goes and kills the baby.

Perhaps you'd understand it if I put it this way: I'm going to replace 'use contraceptives' with 'get an abortion', 'get pregnant' with 'give birth', and 'kill the baby' with 'kill the baby'.

A woman who doesn't want a baby has the recourse of getting an abortion. And yet she doesn't have one, and she gives birth. But, not willing to accept the consequences of her actions, she goes and kills the baby.

Do YOU agree with her decision?

Forgive me, but I believe people should take responsibility for thier actions, even when they don't like the consequences .

*Rape, etc, are special cases, I still don't support abortion, but I felt I need to clarify my use of the word 'stupid'.

[Coney]

Read my earlier posts.........there are many occasions when a woman feels/has no choice other than abortion.

Do you (or others in this thread) disagree with this?

I agree with that many cases of abortion should never arise...if you don't want to become pregnant there are many ways to prevent it.......but what if a person does not live in a country where contreception is not readily available? should they also be subject to the decision that abortion is wrong?

[Coney]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
A woman who doesn't want a baby has the recourse of getting an abortion. And yet she doesn't have one, and she gives birth. But, not willing to accept the consequences of her actions, she goes and kills the baby.

Do YOU agree with her decision?


The scenario you deliver enforces why I believe that a woman has the right to abort a pregnancy without the stigma and prejudice that many feel and yet still they thrust upon her, maybe then she would have felt more comfortable/secure in having an abortion. Abortion is legal and a personal decision. Who can tell an individual what they should or should not do?.

[Wayfarer]

Examine that last question:

What are the chances that a woman with access to clinical abortion wouldn't also have access to at least one method of contraception?

And why oh why would a doctor who performs abortions not make every effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

As to your assertion-There is always a choice. I agree with you that the prospects of life can be bleak... but I'd like you to consider: If killing the baby so that it doesn't have to live in those circumstances is ok, what do you think about killing the mother so she doesn't have to live in those circumstances?

[Coney]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
What are the chances that a woman with access to clinical abortion wouldn't also have access to at least one method of contraception?

And why oh why would a doctor who performs abortions not make every effort to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place?

As to your assertion-There is always a choice. I agree with you that the prospects of life can be bleak... but I'd like you to consider: If killing the baby so that it doesn't have to live in those circumstances is ok, what do you think about killing the mother so she doesn't have to live in those circumstances?

There are millions of people who have access to a Doctor who can perform surgery but their government does not justify the importation of latex/chemical contraception.

Kill a mother? Why would anyone wish to kill a perfectly healthy human being?

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Coney
Why would anyone wish to kill a perfectly healthy human being? An excellent question! Why would anyone want to kill a perfectly healthy human being, large or small, born or unborn!!

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Coney
Who can tell an individual what they should or should not do?. State and Federal Government

[Coney]

Originally posted by emplynx
An excellent question! Why would anyone want to kill a perfectly healthy human being, large or small, born or unborn!!

Hmm it is I define a human being as an person who is capable of independent thought, action and motivation.

What do you think of as a human being?

[Coney]

Originally posted by emplynx
State and Federal Government

That is why you and I live in a democracy.

[Wayfarer]

Coney is correct.

America's fedral government is a system of delegated authority, and everything not specificallya ssigned to state or fedral governments are by default the right of the people.

That's opposed to, say, china. Whre teh government has power by default, and can kill it's citizens and force them to have abortions, etc.

a person...is able of independent thought, action and motivation.

Does that mean you're not a person when you're asleep? ;)

I've got to ask: Does abortion not prevent the child from attaining 'personhood'? And isn't that the same as depriving them of it?

One last bit of food for thought: if I go back in time and force your mother to miscarry, am I or am I not guilty of murdering you?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
One last bit of food for thought: if I go back in time and force your mother to miscarry, am I or am I not guilty of murdering you?

That's not really pertinent to the debate at hand, since by doing so, you are taking away the choices of the mother.

[Nibs]

She just vomited your food, Wayfarer!

Or maybe just opted not to ingest it...

[Wayfarer]

LoL Nibs. ;)
Incedentally, that illustrates my previous point nicely. Abortion and Bulimia (eating and then vomiting) both seek to absolve responsibility. You eat the food, and then puke it up. You get pregnant, and then kill the baby. In both cases you must ask: hy did they do it in the first place? And why should we approve of their actions?

BoP: I'd like an answer to my question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder. If you like, you can ask: what if the mother goes back in time and convinces her former self to kill the baby?

The point is: it leaves the baby just as dead as anything else

[Coney]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
BoP: I'd like an answer ot the question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder.


It depends upon when you beleive life starts.

Which you still havn't answered

:)

[Sister Golden Hair]

You know I have to say that there are worse things then death and many women that abort their babies would have dealt that baby a different death sometime after birth. A death that it would be able to experience in mind first hand, and know the fear of it. Not all, but some. I don't think there is a week that goes by where I don't hear on the news about a child being abused to the point of death. It sickens me a hell of a lot more than abortion. I am pro abortion. I can't think of anything worse than a child being brought into the world unloved and unwanted. Sometimes it's best never to have been born.

[Wayfarer]

Life is: the property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms.

Now... I think you would be hard pressed to call a baby 'dead'. It grows and metabolizes, it reproduces at a cellular level, it responds and adapts to the environment of the womb.

So, is there any doubt that a fetus is alive at conception?

But hold that thought, I've got a few questions for you...

#1) Is a one month old fetus in any way harmful to the mother?

#2)Does it have any traits that justify undergoing an invasive procedure to destroy it?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And why should we approve of their actions?

It has nothing to do with the general populace if a woman has a termination. As far as I'm concerned, it is her business, and she doesn't need our approval. :rolleyes:

Wayfarer:
BoP: I'd like an answer to my question. Because if it IS murder prevent someone's existance, then abortion is murder.

Life is being prevented all the time. I don't think the actual prevention of life is murder. Furthermore, how do you draw the line between miscarriages (spontaneous abortions) and surgical abortions?

How do you define life? During the first trimester, when the majority of abortions (miscarriages and surgical abortions) occur, there is no central nervous system.

Wayfarer:
If you like, you can ask: what if the mother goes back in time and convinces her former self to kill the baby?

Then it's her choice, ain't it? Again: this question is rather futile, since the woman in question either decided to go through with the pregnancy at the time, or not.

And as SGH put so eloquently, there are worse things than the death of something so barely developed that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

Wayfarer:
So, is there any doubt that a fetus is alive at conception?

Is sperm alive? Does that mean everytime some guy gets his jollies, that he's killing off life? A few billion of 'em? Everytime a woman menstruates, that life is dying?

Wayfarer:
But hold that thought, I've got a few questions for you...

#1) Is a one month old fetus in any way harmful to the mother?

#2)Does it have any traits that justify undergoing an invasive procedure to destroy it?

#1) It invades her body like a virus. It saps her strength, makes her physically ill, feeds off her, etc. Some women have been hospitalised due to extreme symptoms of pregnancy.

#2) If it is an unwanted pregnancy, then yes.

[Wayfarer]

Bop: I referred to a specefic age-one month-at which time, as you have pointed out, the fetus is tiny and insignificant-less than half an inch.. It is incapable of making any singificant drain on the mother's resources.

But you seem to believe that it's worthwhile to destroy a barely developing fetus because of what it will or may become. It will become a drain on the mother resources, it will become an inconvenience-so destroy it now, while it's not.

I submit to you that if a fetus can be destroyed because of what it might become, it should equally be spared beause of what it might become?

You justify killing the infant because it will be a strain during the later months of the pregnancy. SGH and Coney both suggest that it's ok if the baby might have been faced with a bad future...
And yet you don't understand how the fact that any embryo might grow up to lead a happy and productive life could be reason to preserve it. Does anyone else sense a double standard here?

I maintain that an embryo has the all the value of what it might become, and that it should be treated accordingly.

[BeardofPants]

You can still get morning sickness and sore boobs within that first month, Wayfarer. A pregnancy starts to take it's toll from the time of conception.

Wayfarer:
I submit to you that if a fetus can be destroyed because of what it might become, it should equally be spared beause of what it might become?

I am not arguing that at all. I was merely outlining that it WAS intefering with the mothers life. To carry a baby to term requires a huge amount of resources. This is why it is important to place the choice of termination in the mothers hands.

Furthermore, your argument doesn't work, because the reason the fetus is being terminated in the first place is not so much what it might become, but because it is unwanted in the first place. You can rationalise all you want, but your mental calenthetics just don't get around the fact that it is the woman's choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
And yet you don't understand how the fact that any embryo might grow up to lead a happy and productive life could be reason to preserve it. Does anyone else sense a double standard here?


So does the fetus that has been spontaneously aborted. Should there have been intervention to prevent this? Not all miscarriages are due to bad genetic make-up. This inherent double standard that you imply simply does not stand up to closer inspection, simply because there are other mechanisms which kick in to "prevent life" as you call it. Menstruation. Miscarriage.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
You can still get morning sickness and sore boobs within that first month, Wayfarer. A pregnancy starts to take it's toll from the time of conception.

As BoP has stated, woman DO get morning sickness within first couple of days and weeks of becoming pregnant a lot of times.

I also want to point out that even if the woman is responsible to make sure that contraception is used during sex - it's not always reliable. The condom can breaks or slip off or whatever. The pill isn't even 100% affective.

I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being. When the fetus has started seriously developing - that is something different.

I guess this is also why I support stem cell research. I don't see a glob of cells as being a baby until it starts forming into one.

[emplynx]

Why a fetus is a human child at conception; once again, with thanks to Randy Alcorn:

Medical Textbooks tell us so:
Dr. Bradley M. Patten's "Human Embryology" states, "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings the to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Dr. Keith L. Morre's book says, "The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being."
Drs. Greenhill and Friedman's book says, "The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
"Parthology of the Fetus and the Infant" says, "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition"
Encyclopedia Britannica says, "A new individual is created when the element of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg"
This list of Docs who will say the same thing goes on and on. I'm not going to type them all unless you really want me to.

Why the child is a seperate being from the mother:
A body part is definied by the common genetic code it shares witht he rest of its body; the unborn's genetic code differes from his mothers!!
The child may die adn the mother live, or visa versa, proving they are 2 separate individuals.
The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth.
Being inside something isn't the same as being part of something.
Humans beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence.

[Wayfarer]

Are you trying to tell me, bop, that only people who deserve to exist are those we want to exist? Because it sure sounds like that's what youre getting at.

I'm puzzled you don't mark the difference between death resulting from an accident and death resulting from the intentional acts of a human being. We call one dying 'of natural causes', we call the other murder.

I also want to point out that even if the woman is responsible to make sure that contraception is used during sex - it's not always reliable.

Which is why I made sure to point out that the first choice is always whether or not to have sex...

I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being.

I am unable to see the reasoning here... at what point does a fetus become a baby... and what is it before that? Sounds like someone has been takin enrest haekel a bit too seriouslyl.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm sorry I just don't see a problem with discarding a bunch of cells even if at one point they MAY grow into a healthy human being. OK, I see your logic. So if I ever have a child who is abot 3 years old and very ill, I won't see any problem with discarding this bunch of cells even if at one point he may grow into a healthy human being. That makes complete sence.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am not arguing that at all. I was merely outlining that it WAS intefering with the mothers life. To carry a baby to term requires a huge amount of resources. This is why it is important to place the choice of termination in the mothers hands.
Once again, that makes perfect sense [also sarcasm...]. Any human being that interferes with someones life should be killed if the person so wishes... Sounds good.

[emplynx]

Some questions for pro-choicers:

For my own interest, how do you feel about partial birth abortion?
How would you feel if I stepoed on and crushed an eagle's egg? (that is a crime...)
How would you feel if I gave a pregnent whale or dolphin medication that would kill it's fetus?

[Silverstripe]

You know what strikes me as very interesting about these babies and small children living in horrible conditions? Some pro-choicers think they'd be better off dead, correct? Yet if someone, for the sake of "mercy," intentionally kills a child after he/she is born, WHATEVER conditions they are living under, it is still considered murder.

[Wayfarer]

I asked before-why don't we kill the mother so she dousen't have to live in those conditions?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by emplynx
Some questions for pro-choicers:

For my own interest, how do you feel about partial birth abortion?
How would you feel if I stepoed on and crushed an eagle's egg? (that is a crime...)
How would you feel if I gave a pregnent whale or dolphin medication that would kill it's fetus?
Stepping on an eagle's egg and killing a whales fetus is a crime because they are indangered species. These are silly examples to compare to human abortion which is an act within the human race, between humans. You don't see eagles and whales performing abortions on humans and anyone that would do to a whale or eagle what you are suggesting is criminal, because it is not for the purpose of sparing the unborn from a brutal life, or from parents that do not want it, or as a favor to the mother to spare her life. It would be a criminal and disgusting act because the mothers of those creatures had no choice, and they do not have free will. Last time I heard, humans still ruled the world.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Silverstripe
You know what strikes me as very interesting about these babies and small children living in horrible conditions? Some pro-choicers think they'd be better off dead, correct? Yet if someone, for the sake of "mercy," intentionally kills a child after he/she is born, WHATEVER conditions they are living under, it is still considered murder. It is another matter after a child is born and being raised in horrid conditions. There is a big diffence in saying they would be better off dead, compared to saying it would have been better had they never been born. I just love how the (right to lifers) like to take things out of context to try to invalidate the views of the (pro-choicers)

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Stepping on an eagle's egg and killing a whales fetus is a crime because they are indangered species. OK [sarcasm again] it's ok to kill humans because we have pleaty of them. Is that what your saying?

[isthatbad!]

i think that unwanted babies should die. maybe with one of those handguns you speak of.

[isthatbad!]

Originally posted by emplynx
OK [sarcasm again] it's ok to kill humans because we have pleaty of them. Is that what your saying?




of course it's ok to kill humans. but it is like any other hunt. eat what you kill:eek:
isthatbad?!

[emplynx]

Originally posted by isthatbad!
i think that unwanted babies should die. maybe with one of those handguns you speak of.
If you feel that way, there's no arguing with you...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
OK, I see your logic. So if I ever have a child who is abot 3 years old and very ill, I won't see any problem with discarding this bunch of cells even if at one point he may grow into a healthy human being. That makes complete sence.

It's ignorant of you to make a claim like that and twist what I said. Sorry if you disagree with me not seeing any problem with aborting a fetus when it is just a clump of cells. To say that I am advocating killing a child after it is born is ignorant and a stupid argument against what I said.

First of all there are several differences...
1) the child is outside the mother and has physically been born and is a unigue individual.
2) the child has feelings - unlike a clump of cells that have only just started developing.

By the way - there are tons of Christians that don't believe in giving their children medical attention and taking them to a doctor. One case happened while I was in Oregon. Some people say that is tantamount to killing a child - others claim it's an issue of freedom of religion (putting their trust in God).

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil

First of all there are several differences...
1) the child is outside the mother and has physically been born and is a unigue individual.
2) the child has feelings - unlike a clump of cells that have only just started developing.
A child inside the mother is a unique human being!! It's not just part of the mother, it's a separate child!!
A child in the womb has feelings! They react to pain. They react to sound! They are people!
Originally posted by jerseydevil
Sorry if you disagree with me not seeing any problem with aborting a fetus when it is just a clump of cells.
All people are just "clumps of cells"! Clumps of cells that make human beings!
Originally posted by jerseydevil
By the way - there are tons of Christians that don't believe in giving their children medical attention and taking them to a doctor. One case happened while I was in Oregon. Some people say that is tantamount to killing a child - others claim it's an issue of freedom of religion (putting their trust in God). That is child abuse. It's not freedom of religion, atleast not the religion I have. It's not Biblical at all for them to do that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
A child inside the mother is a unique human being!! It's not just part of the mother, it's a separate child!!
A child in the womb has feelings! They react to pain. They react to sound! They are people!

They can't react to pain, sounds or anything until their spinal cord is formed. So I guess your saying until then they're not human. In which case - as I have said - I support abortion up to that moment. I DO NOT nor have I EVER supported partial birth abortions unless the mother's life is in danger or their is something seriously wrong with the child - which is what you describe.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even know how a baby forms in the mother's womb. You go right to partial birth abortions as your argument against abortions, as if at the moment of conception that is what a fetus would looks like. That doesn't start occuring until the later 3rd month and into the 2nd trimester. I support abortion in the first trimester.


That is child abuse. It's not freedom of religion, atleast not the religion I have. It's not Biblical at all for them to do that.
Well they view it differently - they feel that a person's life is in God's hands and shouldn't be tampered with through science. I guess we all have our little lines we won't step over. Just like I don't feel that destorying a bunch of cells that have not developed a nervous system to allow a fetus to feel ANYTHING is not wrong or killing, whereas you do.

[emplynx]

[not sarcasm] OK JD. I see your reasoning. Are you saying that any "fetus" without a nervous system isn't a human being"?

[emplynx]

Again with thanks to Randy Alcorn
At eighteen days after conceptoion the heart is forming, and the eyes start to develop. By twenty-one days the heart is not only beating, but pumping blood throughout the body
Do you hear that! By 21 days the heart is beating! This is before almost all women even know they are pregnant. This is before almost all abortions take place.
So if the heart is beating, just what is it that doesn't make it human. And if it's not human, what is it?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
Again with thanks to Randy Alcorn

Do you hear that! By 21 days the heart is beating! This is before almost all women even know they are pregnant. This is before almost all abortions take place.
So if the heart is beating, just what is it that doesn't make it human. And if it's not human, what is it?
yes but the heart beating is the most basic of functions. And I do agree that it is a human being in the MAKING. Do I feel that it is wrong to abort it at this point? NO I do not. It still does not have an established brain (which is TRULY what sets humans apart from other animals) or an established nervous system that can feel pain.

So are you against the morning after pill? or stem cell research. None of the embryos under these two scenarios have reached anywhere near the point to what you use as your argument against abortion.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
So are you against the morning after pill? or stem cell research. None of the embryos under these two scenarios have reached anywhere near the point to what you use as your argument against abortion. Yes and yes (baby stem cells, not adults).
I have reached these with my arguement, but you don't want to hear it (which I can't blame you. I dont' want to hear your argument either.)
Upon the sperm and egg mixing, a human child if formed. I did show you that with all the quotes from scientists and text books. Do you believe that all those scientists are wrong?

[Wayfarer]

Good heavens no! How could all of those scientists possibly be wrong? ]: )

But, honestly, I would like to know how jersydevil qualifies what is human or not... because I know quite a few people without backbones, and I don't waste time trying to aborth them!

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
Yes and yes (baby stem cells, not adults).
I have reached these with my arguement, but you don't want to hear it (which I can't blame you. I dont' want to hear your argument either.)
Upon the sperm and egg mixing, a human child if formed. I did show you that with all the quotes from scientists and text books. Do you believe that all those scientists are wrong?

I believe at that point that a human embryo has formed - not a human child. Also there are tons of doctors that will support my position - so just throwing out quotes from doctors does not necessarily make scientific fact. We all have our own beliefs and there are many doctors that disagree with abortion - but as at the same thime there are also many that support it. A human child does start to form at the time of conception - but that is all.

Abortion is more of a religious issue than a medical one. And wether or not abortion is availalbe in the hospital or not - you nor anyone else is going to prevent a woman from having one. There is always the dark alleys and the, to put it bluntly, the coat hanger method. I'd rather give a woman the option to have an abortion, within limits, than to have them resort to that.

And in regards to stem cell resource - billions of people can be helped through these types of studies.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Good heavens no! How could all of those scientists possibly be wrong? ]: )

But, honestly, I would like to know how jersydevil qualifies what is human or not... because I know quite a few people without backbones, and I don't waste time trying to aborth them!

I didn't say backbone - I said well formed nervous system where the fetus can feel pain. This also then requires a "basic" brain (the animal section) being formed.

[emplynx]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Abortion is more of a religious issue than a medical one. And wether or not abortion is availalbe in the hospital or not - you nor anyone else is going to prevent a woman from having one. There is always the dark alleys and the, to put it bluntly, the coat hanger method. I'd rather give a woman the option to have an abortion, within limits, than to have them resort to that.
I don't believe it's religious as much as ethical. Regarding the "coathanger method"-
There is always going to be dark street corners where murders take place, the, to put it bluntly, the gun to head method. [sarcasm] I'd rather give a person an option to murder someone, within limits, than to have them resort to that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by emplynx
I don't believe it's religious as much as ethical. Regarding the "coathanger method"-
There is always going to be dark street corners where murders take place, the, to put it bluntly, the gun to head method. [sarcasm] I'd rather give a person an option to murder someone, within limits, than to have them resort to that.

yeah - I see how killing a fully conscious living human is the same as aborting a fetus that is only a few days or a month into development. [DEEP SACRASM]

Sorry but unlike you where it's a nothing proposition - I have come to a middle ground. I went to Catholic school - we were taught that abortion was wrong. Of course for their arguments they only used pictures of aborted fetuses that would be today called "partial birth abortions". This si the same argument you have made repeatedly - that the "fetus moves away from the needle", that the "fetus feels pain". I still contend that at that stage it is wrong and should be restricted. So up to that point I agree with you. Prior to that I do not.

[Lizra]

If you have an abortion, at ANY stage, you are stopping a life. I equate stopping a life with killing something. How is it different? Or do you not think that a fertilized egg is "a life". If it's growth cycle is not interupted, the genetic code is there for a new and unique human being to form. If you abort this, a life has been ended. Let's see the hairs split here! :)

[Wayfarer]

Jersydevil... I would like to hear why, exactly, you think a fetus is not human, and what, exactly, you think it is?

I do not believe that the degree of development has any bearing on the value of life. Is a newborn less important than a five-year old? Is a five year old less importand than a teenager? They are fundamentally the same human being.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Jersydevil... I would like to hear why, exactly, you think a fetus is not human, and what, exactly, you think it is?

I do not believe that the degree of development has any bearing on the value of life. Is a newborn less important than a five-year old? Is a five year old less importand than a teenager? They are fundamentally the same human being.

All those example are after the baby is born. I also never said that a fetus wasn't human. I just don't think it is wrong or that I should have the right to tell someone else that they can not abort a pregancy when the fetus is in the initial stages of growth (first 3 months).

[Wayfarer]

I...never said that a fetus wasn't human.

Allright, now since:
A fetus is alive.
A fetus is human.

Why shouldn't it be granted the right to exist that we give every other human?

I just don't think...that I should have the right to tell someone else that they can not abort a pregancy when the fetus is in the initial stages of growth

But you believe that a woman has the right to tell that baby that it cannot complete it's growth?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by emplynx
OK [sarcasm again] it's ok to kill humans because we have pleaty of them. Is that what your saying? That's not what I said. Again a perfect example of distorting and twisting things around to support your opinion. What I said is that the example that you used is ridiculous. They can not be compared to what is being said about abortion. They are not human and they are not capable of making resposible choices. Don't be silly.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Allright, now since:
A fetus is alive.
A fetus is human.

Why shouldn't it be granted the right to exist that we give every other human?

Our Constitution does not extend to the unborn. Although I do consider, personally, partial abortions to be agains the 8th Amendment of "cruel and unusual punishment".


But you believe that a woman has the right to tell that baby that it cannot complete it's growth?

Sorry you disagree - but when the embryo is in the beginnings of forming - before it has the nervous structure to feel pain - I do.

[Lizra]

Luckily you are not a woman JD, :) and you will never be tormented with such a decision! I think it's obviously a VERY fine line here. (is it killing or not) Hopefully the young women who have read this thread will take proper precautions so as to never put themselves in the position of having to make the decision to stop a life.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I am not arguing that at all. I was merely outlining that it WAS intefering with the mothers life. To carry a baby to term requires a huge amount of resources. This is why it is important to place the choice of termination in the mothers hands.
Originally posted by emplynx
Once again, that makes perfect sense [also sarcasm...]. Any human being that interferes with someones life should be killed if the person so wishes... Sounds good.

Emp, I think it says enough about your arguments, when you are not in fact presenting any, but grossly twisting what people ARE saying. I SAID, that because a pregnancy IS such a huge thing, that the choice to go through it or not, should be given to women. That is all. Please refrain from twisting my arguments around. :rolleyes:

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
Luckily you are not a woman JD, :) and you will never be tormented with such a decision! I think it's obviously a VERY fine line here. (is it killing or not) Hopefully the young women who have read this thread will take proper precautions so as to never put themselves in the position of having to make the decision to stop a life.

I wouldn't want to have to make that decision - and I would not want any child of mine aborted. I just think that it's a woman's choice (up to a point - which I have stated).

I know someone that had a child aborted though - and I know she thinks about it all the time. I don't know the occurences of the whole situation - but she was married at the time. Her marriage was a mess though. From what I gathered - her husband may have forced her - hoping she'd get pregnant so she'd stay. She didn't want to bring a child into that environment. She told me that she knows when the child's birthday would be and how old it would be now.

It's not an easy choice - and I never said it was.

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
It is another matter after a child is born and being raised in horrid conditions. There is a big diffence in saying they would be better off dead, compared to saying it would have been better had they never been born. I just love how the (right to lifers) like to take things out of context to try to invalidate the views of the (pro-choicers)


Let us suppose that a fetus is alive. Isn't ending that life then killing the unborn child? And if something is killed, isn't it dead?
Therefore, the child in question would have HAD to die in order to not be born.
Obviously this argument only applies to people who think the unborn baby is truly alive.
And yes, there are some pro-abortionists (not all) that have said the fetus is alive, but that the mother's right to choose is indeed more important than the unborn child's right not to be killed.

[Sister Golden Hair]

You know what really bothers me about the views of people that are against abortion? And before I start, let me just say that I respect those views, and eventhough I don't agree with their opinion, I will defend to the death their right to have it. I expect the same.

Now to answer my own question with a question. Why is it that anti-abortionists who stand out in front of women's clinics protesting and trying to interfere with the free choice of these women, are never there after they have convined the woman to have the baby. Once that baby is born the anti abortionists go back into the wood work. They don't want to concern themselves with the liives of that mother and baby once it is here.

Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby? Are any of you that support having that baby ready to step in and make their lives better and help them? Don't give me the answer that there is always adoption. After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye. On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had.

Answers please. Change my mind if you can. Convince me that I am wrong.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Why is it that anti-abortionists who stand out in front of women's clinics protesting and trying to interfere with the free choice of these women, are never there after they have convined the woman to have the baby.

Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

I always thought that was kind of ironic too. It's similar with those anti-fur people and PETA people that complain about people eating meat or having fur. I guess it's alright to kill and everything as long as the cause is the one THEY believe in.

[Coney]

Hmm been reading this thread with interest.

One thing amazes me.................those agreeing with anti-abortion continue to live in country that practices abortion.

If abortion is murder why on earth do you live a country whose government allows the murder of people legally?:confused:

I certainly could not comfortably live in a place where the authorities allow murder to be commited on a daily basis.

[Lizra]

I would say that even though it's not that easy to give your baby up, It would be the right thing to do, better than stopping it's life. The best thing to do, would have been not to have gotten pregnant. (I'm not including rape here) I got birth control pills before I lost my virginity, And it wasn't easy! I had to hitch-hike downtown to Bell-Flower clinic, (with two other girl friends), three times, because I was underage (16). I was young and dumb for sure, but at least I knew I didn't want to have a baby. I see your point though SGH. There is no easy answer. I am not one who would ever picket an abortion clinic!! :eek: It's really the woman's (or girl's :( ) call. If abortion were made illegal, some would still get them anyway. I would like to see easy access to birth control, and a cultural shift to percieving abortion as a terrible thing to do, not just the last method of birth control.

[Khamûl]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know. Let me throw in my two cents... There are always extremists. Just because there are Muslim extremist terrorists and suicide bombers doesn't mean that all Muslims are like that. On the same page, most people against abortion are peaceful.

[Lizra]

I forgot to add to what I would like to see..... Less cramming of sex down young peoples throats, by the entertainment industry.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Khamûl
Let me throw in my two cents... There are always extremists. Just because there are Muslim extremist terrorists and suicide bombers doesn't mean that all Muslims are like that. On the same page, most people against abortion are peaceful. True, and I did say "not all." The overall majority of anti-abortionists seem to show a radical side though even if it doesn't go to an extream. I would just like to see these people that are so hard-core in their views to put their money where their mouth is. Help these women and their babies after they convince them not to abort. Make your words mean something. Show them that it is that important to you if you are willing to go that far. Being that adamant means making their problem yours.

[Wayfarer]

Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby? Are any of you that support having that baby ready to step in and make their lives better and help them?

In a heartbeat! I believe in doing anything I can to help anpther person. And I agree with you-not enough people really
doing anything to help. But it's not limited to pro-lifers. or abortion in general.

Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

as far as I'm aware, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity. ;)After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye. On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had.

do you not read your own side of the argument?
as recently as two posts before you say this, jersydevil reports:
I know someone that had a child aborted though - and I know she thinks about it all the time.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by Coney
If abortion is murder why on earth do you live a country whose government allows the murder of people legally?:confused:

I certainly could not comfortably live in a place where the authorities allow murder to be commited on a daily basis.
I also shudder to think that I live in a country that has begun to sue fast food chains because their food causes people to become obese. I'll take the bad with the good.

[Wayfarer]

Lizra: that is not a problem limited to the entertainment industry. In fact, I don't think entertainment is even a major factor.

THe problem is that too many people, including most constituents of abortion, support the ideology that no person should be held to a standard by another. And so promiscuious sexuallity is ok.

[Sister Golden Hair]

do you not read your own side of the argument?
as recently as two posts before you say this, jersydevil reports:
I did read that Wayfarer, and I know someone that had an abortion and she was also married at the time. She is still haunted with that loss, but she also says that she can't even imagine how she would have managed and what life for that child might have been like. When I ask her today if she regrets her choice, her answer is "No" That doesn't mean that she is not effected and bothered by the choice she made.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Lizra: that is not a problem limited to the entertainment industry. In fact, I don't think entertainment is even a major factor.

I agree - it's a cop out to blame entertainment. The real problem is families not sitting down and communicating as much.

THe problem is that too many people, including most constituents of abortion, support the ideology that no person should be held to a standard by another. And so promiscuious sexuallity is ok.
So whose standard should everyone be held to? Right now the majority of Americans support limited abortion - that is not going to change anytime soon. It seems as if American society is being held to a particular standard - it's just that anti-abortionists don't like that standard and want everyone to conform to theirs.

[Lizra]

I don't agree! I do blame some entertainment. Things have just gotten worse each decade, sex sells and some in the entertainment business cram it down young peoples throats, not caring what effect it has. Young people are very impresionable, and are easy prey to the "if they are doing it, maybe I should be be doing it" mindset. Many don't have excellent family communication situations! (I know I sure didn't!) It also makes our society look bad! Just my opinion!

[LuthienTinuviel]

can i shoot myself with a .22?
(this was an edit.)

[Lizra]

I certainly understand what you are saying LT. But situations can change, It's hard to acurately predict what will be. You just never know.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
I don't agree! I do blame some entertainment. Things have just gotten worse each decade, sex sells and some in the entertainment business cram it down young peoples throats, not caring what effect it has. Young people are very impreshionable, and are easy prey to the "if they are doing it, maybe I should be be doing it" mindset. Many don't have excellent family communication situations! (I know I sure didn't!) It also makes our society look bad! Just my opinion!
The entertainment industries sole purpose - is to entertain and make money. Just like the sole person of sports stars is to play sports. They're not in the business to raise other people's children.

If the majority of people are upset with something - they won't watch the shows. People have a free choice in what to watch - I agree that much of it shouldn't be seen by children. I also agree that it's difficult for single parents or even two parents to control or know what their child is doing 24/7. It is still the parents responsibility though. Not schools, not TV, not music, not sports stars, but parents.

It's society that has made the Bachelor and Survivor such big hits. The entertainment industy isn't making people watch these shows - people are voluntarily watching them - even though all they are about is back stabbing, lying and using people. When parents find this stuff funny and entertaining - they raise their children to find this stuff funny and entertaining.

[LuthienTinuviel]

nothing is perfect.

like the entire world.

(edit)

[crickhollow]

who died and made you god, that you may choose who lives and who dies? Ideally, each child would be born into a loving, two-parent, wealthy family, but that is not the case. Would you line up all potential mothers, whip out their charts, and on a case-by-case basis send them either to the right (abortion clinic), or to the left (women's hospital)? Some of the greatest men and women civilization has ever known overcame immense odds, and accomplished great things. "Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgement, LuthienTinuviel."

[Lief Erikson]

Precisely. I do understand your argument, Luthien-Tinuviel, but we simply don't have the right to make that sort of decision for a child.


why would you choose a long torturus route by "saving" that baby's life, rather than just ending it before it would ever experince the gross horrors that some not-so- fortunate people face?

Life is full of pain and trials for every person. Killing these people might prevent them from being forced into future pain, as you say. But it is not for us to decide. They have to be able to make their own decisions, and be themselves. There will be happiness in their lives as well as pain, just as there is in all of ours. Because there is a preponderance of one doesn't mean that it won't change in the future. Some of the people who were brought up in those situations are the greatest fighters against it happening anymore (although I don't think their stance is to simply kill people who were like them).

The only way you can get away with abortion is to dehumanize the child by deciding that they aren't a child yet. Either that, or you have to be a massively inflated ego and think that you're God. If someone is in pain or will be, that doesn't give someone else the right to murder them, "For their own good."

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
you have to be a massively inflated ego and think that you're God.

I must have a massively inflated ego. :D

[Silverstripe]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
You know what really bothers me about the views of people that are against abortion? And before I start, let me just say that I respect those views, and eventhough I don't agree with their opinion, I will defend to the death their right to have it. I expect the same.

Now to answer my own question with a question. Why is it that anti-abortionists who stand out in front of women's clinics protesting and trying to interfere with the free choice of these women, are never there after they have convined the woman to have the baby. Once that baby is born the anti abortionists go back into the wood work. They don't want to concern themselves with the liives of that mother and baby once it is here.

Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby? Are any of you that support having that baby ready to step in and make their lives better and help them? Don't give me the answer that there is always adoption. After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye. On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had.

Answers please. Change my mind if you can. Convince me that I am wrong.

I do agree that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions, though I think that varying opinions on abortion are some of the hardest NOT to take personally (for all involved). It's a very touchy issue.

Actually, some centers do help the woman and her child after the child's birth. But now that you will mention it, I will find a local center that does this and find out if I can do volunteer work there in some capacity. Thank you for effectively challenging me to do this.

Most anti-abortionists do not go out and bomb abortion clinics, though obviously there are some who do. If these bombers were careful to make sure there are no people in the clinics when they strike -- it would still wrong, but at least they could say they were trying to respect the sanctity of life. Bombing abortion clinics with people in them is evil and there is no excuse for doing it. I am ashamed that people who profess to believe in the sanctity of life believe they should destroy more lives.

I'd say a girl of 14 shouldn't become pregnant in the first place, but if she does, then yes, she should have the baby. I believe that the fetus is a living person, not to be deprived of life for the reason that living longer might not be "best" for him/her. Of course, I realize that the 14 year old girl would be alone and scared, and I would hardly be surprised by her getting an abortion, especially if no one DID offer to help her and her child after the baby's birth.
If I knew about a situation where a young mother needed support, and I could help, I would, at least if the mother would allow me to do so. I'm not sure all teenage mothers would even accept help in supporting their children.

Doesn't it seem somewhat selfish to kill your child because you don't want to have to say goodbye later on?
Some women do "miss something they never had." And if they change their minds after the abortion and wish they'd kept the baby, there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm sorry, jerseydevil, Luthien-Tinuviel, but I just can't understand how someone could do an abortion, while knowing that the child is alive and is a child. If you think of it simply as organic tissue that doesn't have life yet, then you can justify your destroying it to protect another life (The mother). If, however, you know that this is a living person, I don't understand how you can condone murder. You can't murder someone because you think they'll probably be miserable later on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I'm sorry, jerseydevil, Luthien-Tinuviel, but I just can't understand how someone could do an abortion, while knowing that the child is alive and is a child. If you think of it simply as organic tissue that doesn't have life yet, then you can justify your destroying it to protect another life (The mother). If, however, you know that this is a living person, I don't understand how you can condone murder. You can't murder someone because you think they'll probably be miserable later on.

Basically if you look my posts throughout this thread, you'd see that I basically think of them as a clump of cells (organic matter) until they're nervous system and brain start functioning.

[jerseydevil]

Court blocks Indiana abortion law requiring in-person counseling (http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/11/15/abortion.law.ap/index.html)

INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana (AP) -- A federal appeals court blocked an Indiana abortion law that would require women to get face-to-face counseling before having an abortion.

The stay Thursday by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago keeps the state law from going into effect at least until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether to hear a challenge of it.

The law, passed in 1995, has never taken effect.

In September, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit found the law constitutional, and the court was expected on November 5 to let the law take effect. With a day to spare, however, attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy requested the stay.

The New York City-based center has until December 16 to file its appeal with the nation's high court.

The law requires most women seeking abortions to be counseled in person about risks and alternatives at least 18 hours before the procedure. The counseling generally must happen in the presence of a physician or nurse.

Currently, women can obtain such information over the telephone.

[Starr Polish]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Anti-abortionists are constantly preaching about the sanctity of life. Why then are so many abortion clinics bombed, and if life is so important to them, why do they, and I am not saying all, kill the doctors that perform abortions? They were babies too you know.

I personally do not believe that these people are true 'pro-lifers'. You're right, it's completely hypocritical, wrong and just...stupid. People that bomb abortion clinics are far worse than any person who has or performs abortions.


Can anyone honestly say that a teen at the age of 14 should have a baby? Is that the best thing for that girl, or that baby?... Don't give me the answer that there is always adoption. After a woman has carried a baby, gone through the pain of labor and delivery and held that baby, it's not easy to say good bye.

You cannot honestly say that a 14 year old girl should have a baby, I'm not going to argue. But, it is possible for both the baby AND the mother to live a good life, without adoption. My family is living proof of this. No, it is not easy to say good bye, and I recently discovered that my mother is completely against adoption.

On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had
Then why do so many girls who have abortions feel guilty or upset after they've done so? It is possible to miss something you never had. And they DID have the baby, for some period of time.

About my comment earlier in the thread...eahh...I do'nt know where that came from.

[Lief Erikson]

Aha, so you do dehumanize it (Sorry for coining that term, I know it sounds awful). However, you are still making decisions for an individual (Or potential future individual) that you have no right to make.

If you're a wealthy and influential person in a bank, and I was planning to enter into the bank, you wouldn't have the right to cut me off from entering it simply because you thought I'd be making life miserable for myself and everyone else. I'm not in the bank yet, so cutting me off from entering doesn't harm me so much. Nevertheless, it still isn't a decision that you have any right to make. How do you know that I won't make friends with everyone around me and rise to a prominent position? And even if I didn't and you're right about the misery that would be caused- how do you know that it won't end up going well. Twenty or fifteen years after I enter I might be very thankful that I did. You don't have the right to stop me from success simply because you don't think it'll work, or because it damages your own interests. Doing that is selfish and presumptuous.

We're talking about a human life though; I was simply talking about a business position. That's a very small example to demonstrate a very big point. Thirty years from now, the individual who was aborted could have been having a very happy in life and a blessing to all around him/her. Things might have started out stormy or painful, but in no individual's life is there nothing at all but darkness (I think), and if there are any such situations, they are few and far between, and we have no way of knowing for certain whether this would be one of them.

[Nibs]

Hmm... very interesting thoughts here. Now here's a good question to ask yourselves:

What would I do?

If I were a wedded or unwed expecting mother, I could either focus on my own goals, decide the times not right (etc., etc.) and decide to abort the child or instead accept responsibility for my actions and have the child and either give him up for adoption or give him the best life I can offer. I like to think I'd choose the latter.

If I were a wedded or unwed expecting mother from causes of rape, I could either abort the child, knowing full well that it was not because of my own choices and I have no responsibility for the actions of another person to me. I'd realize the child will never know the father, because I'd never known the father. How could I possibly raise him properly in this environment (etc., etc.)?

On the other hand, I could carry the child as a normal one, give him up for adoption or raise him as best as I can and possibly tell him the truth when he's old enough.

This choice is more difficult... and this hypothetical situation has altered my opinion... once again, I like to think that I'd choose the latter. I admit, it's the more difficult route, but the one I could live with more comfortably.

[Lief Erikson]

On the other hand, you can't miss something you never had

That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.

You're right - I also don't think it's your job to be telling a woman to do with her body before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Even then I don't think you should be the one deciding - I think society should decide. And society seems to generally be against partial birth abortion - except under extreme circumstances.

I have never said kill a baby because it may not have a good life - so I don't even know how I got dragged into this. I feel it's the mother's choice though.

[Starr Polish]

Before someone brings up the "teenagers aren't fit for motherhood" or "they have to have support, and a lot of them won't get it":

My mother was a teenage mother, with no support from her parents (I believe my father's parents helped though). She had my sister, and then me six years later. When I was two she went back to school and eventually became an RN. My parents were married, but they got divorced when I was young. Right now my mother works at the WIC center (Women Infant Children) as the 'head' nurse and we live in an average middle-class home. She's not perfect, no one is. My sister turned out just fine, she is now twenty-two and has a job at a law firm. I'm sure her case is fairly rare but it proves that it is NOT impossible to lead a happy life if you have children young.

True, she hasn't gotten to do everything she wanted when she was young, but who does?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You're right - I also don't think it's your job to be telling a woman to do with her body before the fetus has reached a certain stage. Even then I don't think you should be the one deciding - I think society should decide. And society seems to generally be against partial birth abortion - except under extreme circumstances.

I have never said kill a baby because it may not have a good life - so I don't even know how I got dragged into this. I feel it's the mother's choice though.

I was largely answering Luthien-Tinuviel's statement.

I feel that the parent(s) of a child should make most of the major decisions for that child. Whether they live or die is where I draw the line, though.

The argument is basically the same as whether a mother should have a child at all. Now a woman has the ability to choose when, where and how she is going to bear her child. This doesn't make her obligated to bear a child, simply because she can. Once the child is conceived, you're saying that it still (Since the child isn't alive) is a decision that the mother should make, the same as in the beginning, as to whether or not she's going to have a child. On the surface, this ability of the mother to choose makes sense. But now we come to a difference in the situations. In one case, we're simply taking no action to make a child alive. In the other, we're taking action to prevent a child from being alive. What the intentions or reasons of the mother are is immaterial, for now we get to a moral issue, whether or not the mother has the right to choose. Earlier she did, but now the thing has happened, whether she wanted it to or not, and she'll be taking a step to prevent a life from being lived. And this is where I draw the line, that the mother in this case doesn't have the right to choose what's best for herself and her child. What's best for herself is selfish (However good her reasons are, we're still talking about a human life here), and what's best for the child she can't know, for she isn't God.

[Elvellon]

That brings up the question again as to whether or not it was alive at the point of abortion, but I won't get into that just now. Instead, I can simply repeat that a person has no moral right to decide for another individual or future individual whether or not they are to live. The decision doesn't belong to them, it belongs . . . Well, here we'd have to go off on a tangent about suicide, and I'd rather not drag the discussion into THAT.


The question if it is already human, or not, is the crucial question. It certainly isn’t a straightforward moral issue as you may be implying. It all comes to your beliefs, what defines an undifferentiated group of cells as a human being?

If you accept the idea that it is because “it” has a soul, then, since you can’t prove the existence of the soul, one position is as morally acceptable as the other. It becomes a matter of your belief, not of facts, that define your position.

If it is because you believe it has the potentiality to be human, then still the concept is debatable. Future Rights are not widely acceptable concept, and besides, one can argue that the conflicting rights of a existing human being and the rights of something that may become one are not of the same degree (assuming that one accepts, for the moment, the concept of Future Rights).

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And this is where I draw the line, that the mother in this case doesn't have the right to choose what's best for herself and her child. What's best for herself is selfish (However good her reasons are, we're still talking about a human life here), and what's best for the child she can't know, for she isn't God.

The mother does have the right to choose, the law gives her that right. If a woman decides against having an abortion for religious reasons then that is her decision but one religion should not be allowed to dictate the law for an entire nation.

Would abortion still be concidered murder in such cases as ectopic pregnancy?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
The question if it is already human, or not, is the crucial question. It certainly isn’t a straightforward moral issue as you may be implying. It all comes to your beliefs, what defines an undifferentiated group of cells as a human being?


It is a straightforward moral issue when the thing already is coming to be alive. You are taking action to prevent its being alive, and that makes it a moral issue. Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not. For here, whether it has a soul or not yet, you are taking action to prevent them from being alive. In the other case, you are simply not taking action to make it alive. There is a large difference between the two.

Originally posted by Coney
The mother does have the right to choose, the law gives her that right. If a woman decides against having an abortion for religious reasons then that is her decision but one religion should not be allowed to dictate the law for an entire nation.

Do you know how that law came into being? It was decided by one small panel of judges at that time, deciding for the nation. They worked very hard to prevent it from coming to the vote, for at that time the nation was overall against it and there wasn't any great need for abortion. The case would certainly have been lost. However, after they legalized it in one instance and made it legal for the nation (It became decided by due process of law later), far more abortions had by then been done. After it was already in place, it was much harder to get rid of.

And whether or not the law is right in this case is also very debatable. I think that it's definitely wrong, for not even the law of the nation has any right to decide whether or not these people should live or die. It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.

But that was murder, you might say, and this is simply abortion, for these cells aren't even alive yet! Unwittingly, you're making the same mistake Hitler made. We kill crickets and other insects, sometimes even larger creatures when they are pests and disrupting our lives. What level is this group of cells at? If you don't know whether they are a life or not, then why are you killing them? We don't know how human the mentally insane are, so why shouldn't we just kill them off? Simply becaues they're clad in a human body doesn't somehow make them better than an animal that we would kill off if it's a drain on our resources.

Even if they aren't alive yet, or as fully alive as we are, it is still preventing them from being alive without their consent, and I think that the decision belongs to a higher rule than our own law. It still is taking something into your own hands which you don't have the moral right to take. That individual who was aborted could thirty years later have been happy and a blessing to all around him/her, as I said before. The decision as to whether or not that individual should live or not shouldn't be ours.


Would abortion still be concidered murder in such cases as ectopic pregnancy?

And should the death sentence be allowed either? Those are different cases.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.
Oh yeah - it is so MUCH like what Hitler was doing. Don't be ridiculous. Each state has their own laws governing abortion. The Surpeme Court only ruled that the right to choose couldn't be restricted. Fight for your state to impose tougher restrictions. I'm for state rights - so what you and your state wants I don't want dictating what my state does.

[Lief Erikson]

I was pointing out that something being legal doesn't make it right. On moral issues like this, legality isn't proof of anything. Rights are all very well and good, I agree with you, jerseydevil, on there being rights of an individual and a state. However, there is a point where free rights can become wrong. Law is there to prevent free rights from going too far and leading to evil. And I think that you're placing the line too far to one side, by dehumanizing and taking into your hands what you shouldn't.

But you know what, I really don't want to fight with you, jerseydevil, or other people. And since this is a very emotionally charged topic, now that I've stated my opinions and the reasons for them, I think I'll withdraw from the thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I was pointing out that something being legal doesn't make it right. On moral issues like this, legality isn't proof of anything. Rights are all very well and good, I agree with you, jerseydevil, on there being rights of an individual and a state. However, there is a point where free rights can become wrong. Law is there to prevent free rights from going too far and leading to evil. And I think that you're placing the line too far to one side, by dehumanizing and taking into your hands what you shouldn't.

But you know what, I really don't want to fight with you, jerseydevil, or other people. And since this is a very emotionally charged topic, now that I've stated my opinions and the reasons for them, I think I'll withdraw from the thread.
The thing is that you view it as a black and white issue. As I have said nothing is ever black and white. Everyone has their own ideas of how far abortion should go and society is somewhere in the middle.

I personally am against abortion - but I support a person choice with restrictions. I also will not judge someone for getting an abortion since I wasn't in their shoes.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And whether or not the law is right in this case is also very debatable. I think that it's definitely wrong, for not even the law of the nation has any right to decide whether or not these people should live or die. It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.

But that was murder, you might say, and this is simply abortion, for these cells aren't even alive yet! Unwittingly, you're making the same mistake Hitler made. We kill crickets and other insects, sometimes even larger creatures when they are pests and disrupting our lives. What level is this group of cells at? If you don't know whether they are a life or not, then why are you killing them? We don't know how human the mentally insane are, so why shouldn't we just kill them off? Simply becaues they're clad in a human body doesn't somehow make them better than an animal that we would kill off if it's a drain on our resources.

Even if they aren't alive yet, or as fully alive as we are, it is still preventing them from being alive without their consent, and I think that the decision belongs to a higher rule than our own law. It still is taking something into your own hands which you don't have the moral right to take. That individual who was aborted could thirty years later have been happy and a blessing to all around him/her, as I said before. The decision as to whether or not that individual should live or not shouldn't be ours.


You think that an induviduals choice to terminate a pregnancy is on a par with Hitlers actions towards the genocide of whole races???

*speechless* *amazed* *very worried*

Hitler was one man making a decision for a whole nation. Abortion is one person making a decision that will effect their whole lives!

How do you live in a country whose law does not support you moral beliefs??

If the law was passed by such a minority, why is it still in place??

By the Gods I'm glad I don't see life as back&white as you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
How do you live in a country whose law does not support you moral beliefs??

You know coney - there is no country that can support all of someone's moral beliefs. Everyone would have to live by themselves on a deserted island and there aren't enough of those to go around. I know that England can not possibly do everything you think it should do. :)

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

It is a straightforward moral issue when the thing already is coming to be alive. You are taking action to prevent its being alive, and that makes it a moral issue. Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not. For here, whether it has a soul or not yet, you are taking action to prevent them from being alive. In the other case, you are simply not taking action to make it alive. There is a large difference between the two.


It is alive, yes, but what then?

A single cell taken from one’s body is alive, and it is a Human cell too, yet no one attributes any rights to it. So simply being alive is not sufficient. It is a necessary argument, but not a sufficient one.

What you are doing here is using implicitly the “potential to be human” argument. You are attributing rights based on potentiality. Yet you say “Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not”. You seem to be falling into contradiction here. Consider this:

Reproductive cells have the potentiality to start a new human life too. They are also obviously alive. When one denies the possibility of becoming a human being to them (by the use of contraceptives or even, irony of ironies, by simple abstinence) a person is in effect “taking action to prevent them from being human,” an active action (in the case of the contraceptives) or a passive one (in the case of abstinence).

In any circumstance it involves a deliberate choice of action, or lack of it, to deny the fulfilment of potentiality. As such, if denial of potentiality is morally wrong, the means used by a person to deny such potentiality to be fulfilled are irrelevant.

But you seem to claim that this is acceptable in the case of reproductive cells, as opposite to the other case (the zygote). Yet, if one wants to remain true to the reasons you presented we would have to accept that the use of contraceptives (or even chastity) are morally wrong, since they are actions, active or passive, that prevent the potentiality of new human life to evolve into a real human.

Ultimately, to be completely faithful to the argument one should became subservient to the reproductive role, obviously an unacceptable thing.

So again I say, potentiality is not, by itself a valid argument. If one wishes to attribute human rights to a zygote one have to find a valid reason why. Simply saying it may evolve into a human is not enough.

And if one accepts the argument of potentiality, one should accept it fully. For if not, he denies the validity of the argument.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You know coney - there is no country that can support all of someone's moral beliefs. Everyone would have to live by themselves on a deserted island and there aren't enough of those to go around. I know that England can not possibly do everything you think it should do. :)

Very true;)

But if I felt my government had laws which allow murder (as many on this thread feel abortion to be murder) then I would seriously consider relocating.

[crickhollow]

can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

[Coney]

Originally posted by crickhollow
can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

Vatican City.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Coney
Vatican City. right. now to learn italian--I don't think my meager studies in Spanish will do the trick (though it's surprising how similar the two are).

[Wayfarer]

Vatican City.
Allright, guys, pack up! We're moving! :rolleyes:

It is alive, yes, but what then?

It is alive, it is a complete human organism, and it is an individual.

It is not that a baby simply has the potential to be human. What is it if not human? And it is not that it is simply human genetic material. It is a unique being which is different from the mother and the father. And as such it should be accorded the rights we give other human beings. Including the right to exist.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by crickhollow
can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

Going by your location - you're from British Columbia. I may be wrong - but I haven't heard any news flashes saying that British Columbia succeeded from Canada and has since joined the US. What concern is it of yours whether America allows abortion or not? You should be concentrating on whether Canada allows abortion or not. As long as they support your view then you should be happy.
ABORTION LAW IN CANADA (http://www.duhaime.org/ca-abor.htm)

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Going by your location - you're from British Columbia. I may be wrong - but I haven't heard any news flashes saying that British Columbia succeeded from Canada and has since joined the US. What concern is it of yours whether America allows abortion or not? You should be concentrating on whether Canada allows abortion or not. As long as they support your view then you should be happy.
ABORTION LAW IN CANADA (http://www.duhaime.org/ca-abor.htm) I am only north of the 49th to take advantage of the exchange rate on universities. I'm at a private school, paying the equivelant of a good state school at home. I am in Canada, but I am American :D
[edit: so there]

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Allright, guys, pack up! We're moving! :rolleyes:



It is alive, it is a complete human organism, and it is an individual.

It is not that a baby simply has the potential to be human. What is it if not human? And it is not that it is simply human genetic material. It is a unique being which is different from the mother and the father. And as such it should be accorded the rights we give other human beings. Including the right to exist.

Define complete.

A zygote doesn’t have a head, arms, legs, or any other organ for that mater, it doesn’t think or have aspirations or fears
so, in what sense you claim it to be “complete?”


“It is nothing but human,” true, so a single human liver cell is “nothing but human.” It just isn’t a human. And here you have the gist of the problem.

Uniqueness?
In what sense?
Genetically? What is the importance of it? What about identical twins? Since one is the genetic copy of the other is it OK to kill one? Uniqueness is preserved.
So what uniqueness are you talking about?

So what makes a human for you? You have failed to present any concrete, clear concept of it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by crickhollow
I am only north of the 49th to take advantage of the exchange rate on universities. I'm at a private school, paying the equivelant of a good state school at home. I am in Canada, but I am American :D
[edit: so there]
Well then I guess you're half there to moving out to a place that supports your views. :)

[Wayfarer]

Complete:
a)Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire.

An embryo is complete in that it has everything it needs to develop fully. As opposed to a sperm or an egg, which are incapable of doing anything on without the other in order to do anything, the embryo lacks no major aspect which it will not produce itself. An unborn baby will continue to live and develop as long as it receives a steady stream of nutrients-Which, I must point out, stays the same after birth. The infant is immature, not incomplete.


Human:
a)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. (applies to the unborn.)
b)A person.

Person:
a)A living human. (Baby is alive and human)
b)An individual of specified character. (since the infant is itself, and not someone else, it does have a specefic character. While it is true that this character is not fulley developed, the same thing could be said of a newborn or an adolescent.)


Uniqueness?
In what sense?

An unborn child is unique genetically, true. But unique in the sense that it is itself and not something else. As opposed to the belief that the embryo is 'just some tissue in the mothers body'. It a singular organism, not a part of another organism or a copy.

The baby is (an) individual: Existing as a distinct entity;A single human. As such I believe it deserves the rights we give all individuals.

[Elvellon]

Complete:
a)Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire.

An embryo is complete in that it has everything it needs to develop fully. As opposed to a sperm or an egg, which are incapable of doing anything on without the other in order to do anything, the embryo lacks no major aspect which it will not produce itself. An unborn baby will continue to live and develop as long as it receives a steady stream of nutrients-Which, I must point out, stays the same after birth. The infant is immature, not incomplete.


An embryo is incapable of fully develop, by itself. It still needs outside support to become more than an embryo. Otherwise this very discussion would be pointless. Reproductive cells, also, need outside factors to become something else, but have in themselves all they need to become something else, if their external needs are fulfilled (something that in their case involves it’s counterpart).

You claim a qualitative difference, but it is really more quantitative than qualitative. It is simply a matter of how many steps separates it from humanity and not of being human already.


Human:
a)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. (applies to the unborn.)
b)A person.

Person:
a)A living human. (Baby is alive and human)



A human is a human because it is a human. :D Forgive me the pun, but if this kind of definition works fine in most (obvious) cases, it is precisely in the extreme cases were the need for a more accurate definition arises. And we were talking of one such case.



Person:
b)An individual of specified character. (since the infant is itself, and not someone else, it does have a specefic character. While it is true that this character is not fulley developed, the same thing could be said of a newborn or an adolescent.)

An unborn child is unique genetically, true. But unique in the sense that it is itself and not something else. As opposed to the belief that the embryo is 'just some tissue in the mothers body'. It a singular organism, not a part of another organism or a copy.


I don’t agree with your use of the “unique character” as being the relevant factor here. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup, so it is not a matter of genetic singularity. Personality is also absent in an embryo, so it is not a factor. So it’s unique character isn’t really extant.

And if not used in the sense of genetic singularity, nor in the sense of having a personality, uniqueness can only lead to one argument:

Potentiality.

It has the potentiality of being a unique individual, as opposed as being one. And potentiality is a weak argument, since it exists before the embryo.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Murder is the intentional killing of another human being by another, that is all I am saying. You can't support capital punishment but not abortion if you say abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

*cracks up* HEEEHEEEHEEEHEEEHEEE I'm such an azz but that is hilarious. Capital PUNISHMENT! you don't punish an innocent person sweet heart! sheesh

Overview:
The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head. In the past, people were often executed by severing their head from their body.

From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2002-JAN-1, there have been 749 executions in the US. About 30 to 60 prisoners are currently killed annually, most by lethal injection. About two out of three executions (65.6%) are conducted in five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings (256 killings; 34% of the national total). There were about 3,690 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military. 7 About 1.5% are women.

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which executes criminals. It is one of the few countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

When asked whether they prefer to keep or abolish the death penalty, about 60 to 80% of American adults say that they want to retain capital punishment. Numbers vary depending upon the precise wording of the question asked by the pollsters. When asked whether they would like to see executions continue or have them replaced with a system that guaranteed:

life imprisonment with no hope for parole, ever;
that the inmate would work in the prison to earn money;
that the money would be directed to helping the family of the person(s) that they killed, 55% choose the latter.

~~~~~~~

The Survey Research Unit of Ohio State University's College of Social and Behavioral Sciences published a news release on 1997-OCT-1. It described the opinions of Ohioans towards the death penalty. 2 The results were based on a random sampling of 805 English speaking adults who were interviewed by telephone during mid 1997-SEP. They found:

66% favored the death penalty for convicted murderers; 9% were in favor under certain circumstances; 17% were opposed and 8% were ambivalent.
46% thought it very likely or somewhat likely for an innocent person to be executed; 47% reported somewhat or very unlikely.
Adults without a college degree were more likely to believe that an innocent person could be executed than were college graduates by a ratio of 50% to 27%
59% would support an alternative to execution if it involved life in prison without chance of parole and a requirement that the inmate work while in prison with the money going to the victim's family. 31% supported the death penalty in preference to this alternative. An inmate working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, over a 25 year sentence at $3.00 an hour would generate $150,000 for the family of the victim.
Non-college graduates (60%), those under 30 years of age (67%), females (68%), those not married (64%) and African-Americans (70%) were more likely to support this alternative than college graduates (53%), those 30 years old or older (56%), males (49%), those married (55%) and Whites (56%).

The margin of error is less than 4% on these data.

[cassiopeia]

Originally posted by Aeryn
*cracks up* HEEEHEEEHEEEHEEEHEEE I'm such an azz but that is hilarious. Capital PUNISHMENT! you don't punish an innocent person sweet heart! sheesh

Well, geez, thats what it's called. :rolleyes:

[Rûdhaglarien]

It's hard for me to explain my position on abortion. If I were in such a position, I would never have an abortion... as I wouldn't feel right about it. But, I believe that if a woman doesn't feel that she can properly provide for a child, abortion is okay... until you are so far along in the pregnancy. It's a moral issue, for me.

Guns are easier. It is a constitutional right to carry a handgun. I believe that our government is being stupid. Stupid. Plain and simple: stupid. They're just trying to control us. Read the Bill of Rights. Besides, if only police officers and such had guns, many would abuse the power. The People have a right to be able to defend themselves.

[Erawyn]

Guns are easier. It is a constitutional right to carry a handgun. I believe that our government is being stupid. Stupid. Plain and simple: stupid. They're just trying to control us. Read the Bill of Rights. Besides, if only police officers and such had guns, many would abuse the power. The People have a right to be able to defend themselves

While some police already abuse power, its not like innocent people need to defend themselves against the police with guns!

[Rûdhaglarien]

That's.Not.Always.True. Ask my father (who is a Police officer [and undercover narcotics investigator for the MA state police, to be exact]) and he'll tell you the same thing.

[Erawyn]

In what way?? be more specific, i'm really interested!

[Aeryn]

You will always have the power crazed people in any profession, in every walk of life. Those people are a few in many.
Anyway, if only police are legally able to have guns, how much bigger will the black market for guns be? Criminals will always get what they need. The government CANT destroy every gun that ever existed if they out-lawed guns with normal, everyday people. So where will you be when the government decides to out-law guns, out-law protecting yourself if the time ever presented itself with deadly force, *whew, I am getting wordy, ill wrap it up* and criminals still have guns by the millions?

[Coney]

Any country that has/have allowed handguns to be legally owned have already cut their own throat:(

[Aeryn]

How so?

*damn the 90 sec. mumbo jumbo.*

[Coney]

Guns kill......that is what they were designed to do..........that is what they do.

The bigger the availabilitly of guns...the bigger the death rate...one of the, unfortunate, reasons why the murder rate in countries with pro gun gun-laws is higher than those who restrict gun-ownership.

[Aeryn]

Guns don't kill. People kill. That sounds really trite, but it is true, a gun doesn't go off by itself.

Anyway, I understand what your saying, but I don't necissarily agree with it. And...that's ok...(? confused look?)

[Coney]

Originally posted by Aeryn
Guns don't kill. People kill. That sounds really trite, but it is true, a gun doesn't go off by itself.

Anyway, I understand what your saying, but I don't necissarily agree with it. And...that's ok...(? confused look?)

Very true.........only people kill...........but they find killing so much easeir if they have a gun (and I'm not saying that everyone who owns a gun finds it easier/has the wish to kill).

Nothing wrong with disagreement Aeryn.......the whole point of these boards is discussion;)

Do you, or in fact others, think that things would have been different if you did not have "the right to bear arms" in the constitution?

[Aeryn]

I do, for the Civil war as an example. Most men who chose to fight fought with there own guns. What would have happened without that weaponry? just as an example. Also, farmers needed gun to protect livestock.
This (I think) is a Pro situation.

Well perhaps if guns would have been illegal to bear from the beginning then there wouldnt be such a big market for guns? Not likely, other countries would smuggle them here, for the bad guys.

I can't think of a way it would have been different in a positive way. I honestly can't.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Aeryn
I do, for the Civil war as an example. Most men who chose to fight fought with there own guns. What would have happened without that weaponry? just as an example. Also, farmers needed gun to protect livestock.
This (I think) is a Pro situation.

Well perhaps if guns would have been illegal to bear from the beginning then there wouldnt be such a big market for guns? Not likely, other countries would smuggle them here, for the bad guys.

I can't think of a way it would have been different in a positive way. I honestly can't.

Hmm I, obviously, can only go from example of the UK.

I have a gun license (I can own anything from a 21 gauge to a 12 gauge shotgun) I can own as my uncle owns a smallholding (farm). but it is only since the gun-laws became relaxed that we have had such events as the Dunblane massacre (the law changed that citizens can own high-calibre pistols for "sports" target competions, I believe that this law has now been revoked).

Yes, gun smuggling is a becoming more common here......but any crime commited with the possesion of a illegal firearm is treat as "assualt with a deadly weapon" and carries an immediate 12 yr jail sentence......ownership of an illegal weapon carries an automtic 4yr sentence.

There fore we have a, releatively, gun-free culture.

Are you saying that the USA would not be better-off without guns?

[Aeryn]

*looks around*....*nods and shakes head* No, I am saying I don't have the imagination for what you proposed.

[Dunadan]

Obviously, with the US, you can't make the billion or so firearms suddenly disappear. However, it is simply ridiculous to try to argue that their 11,000 gun-related murders each year are not related to the lax gun laws.

And that's just the intentional acts. If you've got guns lying around in your home, sooner or later some kids are going to get hold of them and shoot their mates! You're more likely to be shot with your own gun or by someone you know than by an intruder or stranger.

It seems that two very simple restrictions would help reduce these figures:
1. a requirement for safe storage of guns to reduce accidents.
2. a limit on ownership.

One thing it's hard to understand for me is the argument that citizens need guns to defend themselves from the Government. Why are people so afraid of Government?

cheers

d.

[LuthienTinuviel]

humans are expendable. don't try to talk me out of this opinion. you won't. i am not wrong, because it is my opinion. so, with all of the respect that is due here, (edited), (edited).


new edit:
i am pulling my origianal thoughts ou tof this thread because some people can't handle the thought that others can thingk differently than them.

[Aeryn]

i believe that abortions are a form of birth control. again, im not going out and saying "kill those babies" but if you need to, one should be able to go to a clinic and not be hassled by church groups who lay across the driveway just asking to be hit. the world is overpopulated already, and most of you may find this sick and wrong, but i also believe that humans are somewhat disposable, i see everything as a clump of cells, nervous system or not (deer and wild game that people hunt and kill without remorse or thanks have nervous systems too, no?) life will go on even though teenage mothers to be (or not to be) are sucking out thier children.

^Luthien

I think that sounds like "Kill those babies". Am I hearing things?

[Aeryn]

May I also state, that I believe that statement...in my last statement, that I took from your statement, is disgusting. Dam, You are just a clump of cells, I'm going to take my .22 and shoot you in the head...okay now...how does that make you feel exactly? Afraid? what? If you see everything as a clump of cells then YOU are just a clump of cells...correct? You have a nervous center, but you blatantly stated that didn't matter. So, shooting you with my .22 is alright?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

. . .and now i can finally state my opinion on this matter, after having faithfully read the entirety of this thread over the course of the last few weeks, and not being able to post. . .

<sigh>

well, just to state my opinion, rather than jumping in to the actual debate yet, i am definitely pro-choice. and i do not think that abortion early in the pregnancy is wrong, um, in the first trimester or so though i really need to read up on this again...right, anyway, later on i think if the mother's life is in danger than her life has priority.
but, even if i did believe it is morally wrong, i would say that the choice should be up to the (potential) mother entirely and no one should be able to take that choice away from her. though in many cases counsel is a good thing other than that i don't think the government or anyone else has the right to take away that choice. how can anyone, i ask, think it is okay to dictate what a woman does with her body, and with her potential child which at that point is still a part of her..er..if that makes sense..*sigh* i don't think clearly when i'm tired but anyway...

i find it interesting, and somewhat disturbing that many of the 'mooters debating this subject (on both sides...) are male. just a thought.

handguns? i don't have much of a problem with 18th century muskets, but the only purpose a handgun has is for killing another human. (a full human who is no longer dependant on its mother for life, might i add) hmm. i see a difference. i don't have near as much of a problem with say hunting rifles as with handguns...those things are scary. i get slightly freaked out just having a fake one pointed at me (it was my tai kwon do class...learning how to get out of a situation like that...which only works if you're reeeeally fast and in arm's reach of the gun...) again, more on this later...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
One thing it's hard to understand for me is the argument that citizens need guns to defend themselves from the Government. Why are people so afraid of Government?

You'd have to read about the forming of the US government and the history of America under British rule to understand why Americans distrust the government so much.


Obviously, with the US, you can't make the billion or so firearms suddenly disappear. However, it is simply ridiculous to try to argue that their 11,000 gun-related murders each year are not related to the lax gun laws.

It seems that two very simple restrictions would help reduce these figures:
1. a requirement for safe storage of guns to reduce accidents.
2. a limit on ownership.

How do you know what gun laws we have? First of all most crimes that are committed by criminals with guns - they obtained illegally. Under the law - the sniper should not have been sold a gun because of his domestic violence charges. The place he got the gun was investigated and was shut down for not keeping accurate records of who was buying guns and for breaking various other gun laws we have. I'm sure that wasn't reported in the international media though.

I like your first suggestion "requirement for safe storage of guns" - short of going into people's home to do spot checks on them - which would go against "unreasonable searches and seisures" how would you propose that to be implemented? I know that Britain was big on this tactic during colonial times - that's one of the main causes of the Revolution.

There are plans to require locks on the guns themselves - but again - that only works if they're actually used.

It is a Constitutional right for Americans to own guns. Even though I do not own a gun - I support that Amendment. If guns are restricted from law abiding citizens - for whatever reason - then only criminals will have them.

Also - one of the first things a tyranical government tries to restrict is gun ownership. Without gun ownership - we would still be a British colony.

You might be interested in this book about the Constitution - it would explain our government and how our goverenment was formed - Decision in Philadelphia: The Constitutional Convention of 1787 (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345346521/qid=1038413210/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-8859272-0231231?v=glance&s=books).

It doesn't go over the Bill of Rights - which the "Right to Bear Arms" is part of - but it was a requirement that the states wanted added in order to accept the Constitution. It's a very easy book to read and it'll show you the conflicts that had to be overcome between the various states. We were technically 13 different countries - attempting to join together.

I do find it interesting how Europeans state our "laws" - but very few actually know what laws we do have - or even how our government works. Talking on Entmoot - I have found out that most peole outside the US - don't even know that states have their own laws. They don't understand the limited role that the federal government is supposed to play and that the Constitution leaves everything not expressly limited in the Constitution - up to the states. I am for stronger state rights. I do not want California dictating the laws of New Jersey.

Each state has their own gun laws as well as their own abortion laws and that's as it should be.

[Dunadan]

Are you saying that the 11,000 murders are NOT related to the gun laws?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Dunadan
Are you saying that the 11,000 murders are NOT related to the gun laws?
No they're not - it's related to people being criminals. Where do the criminals get the guns? They can't go into a walmart to get them or any other legitimate place - at least as long as they have a record.

I do support manditory background checks at gun shows - I think that is one thing that is missing.

Do you know what gun laws we do have? Or are you just assuming that we have lax gun laws because that's what your media reports?

State by State Gun Laws (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/schools/gun.control/)
Research Library | State Gun Laws (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state) - This is from an NRA related site - but it does go far more in depth with the various state laws.


A Citizen's Guide To Federal Firearms Laws (http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=60)
Under federal law supported by the National Rifle Association, the use of a firearm in a violent or drug-trafficking crime is punishable by a mandatory prison sentence of up to 20 years. A second conviction, if the firearm is a machine gun or is equipped with a silencer, brings life imprisonment without release. Violating firearms laws should lead to very real punishment for violent criminals, but the laws first must be enforced.


I think one of the things that we need to do - which a lot of congressman have stated to - is to enforce the LAWS we DO have. We have tons of gun laws already - if they aren't enforced - then we are in trouble.

I think that only American citizens should be allowed to buy guns in America. Since we don't have a national ID card - something I am against anyway - I'm not exactly sure how that would really work.

Deaths: total, total and common accidental, and firearm-related (http://www.nraila.org/nchs_data/us.xls) (Excel Spreadsheet)

These file -- for the U.S., the 50 states, and the District of Columbia -- contain annual statistics for total deaths, total accidental deaths, deaths due to various common types of accidents, total homicides, total suicides, and firearm-related deaths (suicides, homicides, and accidents). (Source: National Center for Health Statistics)
Accident Statistics (http://www.nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=127)


Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2000 (http://www.atf.treas.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/2000_ref.htm)

Are UK Gun Laws Better Than US Gun Laws (http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3727172d070b.htm) - I don't have the stats to back up what this person from the Daily Telegraph claims though.

We live in a freer country than Britain - and because of our freedoms - it is more of the individual's responsbility to be law abiding. We don't have security cameras watching us all over the place (although they are coming and many Americans - including me are outraged) 24/7.

Criminals break or get around laws - law abiding citizens are the ones that are restricted by them. Laws are used by government to take away the freedoms of it's citizens. It does nothing to prevent criminal behavior.

[Elven Archer]

My cousin has a friend who was in her car at a red light and these men got out of their car with bats and crow bars and stuff and started coming at her. she reached under her seat and got a gun and just put it to the window and they turned around and went back.

i haven't read this thread since i didn't read it one day and it grew 4 pages.anyway i was jsut gonna put that in so people who are dead against guns can read it. cause if she hadn't had a gun she could have been killed or raped or something.

[jerseydevil]

US politics and gun control(BBC) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/407576.stm)
...the degree of control varies from state to state.

California has limited gun sales to one firearm per customer per month and outlawed some assault weapons according to their characteristics rather than the make and model - a loophole which emerged during a previous attempt to legislate.

Illinois now requires owners to lock away firearms and fit child safety locks, the culmination of a 10-year campaign.


This article also brings up the great rallying cry for gun legistlation - namely Columbine. The thing that mostly doesn't get reported is the fact that they had tons of bombs that they were going to set off - including in the cafeteria. For some reason - I think the bombs would have caused a lot more devastation than the guns. The problem is - no one has any quick answers to deal with the bombs so it gets ignored and under reported. The guns are an easy target, but not the cause of crime.


Bombs at the School (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/report/columbinereport/pages/bombs_text.htm)
Beginning with an initial sweep of Columbine High School, the highest priority for removal of devices initially was given to the library so that the bodies of the deceased could be removed from the scene. Second priority would be given to the cafeteria and additional areas would be assessed. This plan was followed until two bombs, with timing devices attached, were found at 5:43 p.m. in two vehicles parked in the south student parking lot, a BMW belonging to Klebold and a Honda belonging to Harris.

During the collection and handling of the explosives evidence Tuesday evening, one bomb and other devices within the bomb trailer were accidentally detonated. Two bomb technicians from the Arapahoe Sheriff’s Office were lowering a pipe bomb into the trailer when a striking match attached to the pipe bomb brushed against the trailer wall and ignited. The devices exploded within the confines of the trailer. At 10:40 p.m. April 20, the radio report of “officer down” stunned the entire law enforcement community responding to the Columbine incident. Thankfully, no one was hurt because the technicians were well trained and wearing protective bomb suits and knew to fall backward as they saw the spark from the device.

There were no injuries and no fatalities as a result of any bomb explosions.

There were a total of 76 devices found at the school, two diversionary devices, 13 devices in the suspects’ cars, and 8 more at their two homes or a total of 99 explosive devices.



The Duffel Bag Bombs (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/report/columbinereport/pages/dufflebags.htm)
Investigators established that Harris and Klebold brought the bags containing the large propane bombs into the cafeteria and set them beside two cafeteria tables at the beginning of the first lunch period. The bombs were hidden in duffel bags so they easily blended in with the 400-plus backpacks strewn on the floor, under tables and chairs throughout the cafeteria. Most high school students carry some type of backpack. Two more bags brought in by one of their peers would not raise anyone’s suspicions.

Nearly 500 students were in the cafeteria that day. Investigators interviewed all of them at least once, but no one actually recalled either of the gunmen walking in with a duffel bag and setting them down near tables (PP and QQ) where the two normally sat with friends at lunch.

The bomb technicians discovered that the bombs were equipped with timers set to detonate at 11:17 a.m.


Columbine Report (Rocky Mountain News) (http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/report/columbinereport/pages/toc.htm)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

It's not just criminals that kill people with guns. There are accidents. There was the case in Flint, Michigan (I think it was Flint. . .) where a 6 year old (okay, forgive me if i say something innacurate this is all from memory) found a gun in his uncle's house, brought it to school and killed a 6 year old girl. He was not a criminal, he was a young child who's mother had to get up very early to take a bus to another city to work at a mall all day and come home late at night, and still she was not making enough money to pay the rent. So she was staying with her brother, where her son found a gun and brought it to school.

. . .just a thought. It's not all criminals who have guns illegally.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
It's not just criminals that kill people with guns. There are accidents. There was the case in Flint, Michigan (I think it was Flint. . .) where a 6 year old (okay, forgive me if i say something innacurate this is all from memory) found a gun in his uncle's house, brought it to school and killed a 6 year old girl. He was not a criminal, he was a young child who's mother had to get up very early to take a bus to another city to work at a mall all day and come home late at night, and still she was not making enough money to pay the rent. So she was staying with her brother, where her son found a gun and brought it to school.

. . .just a thought. It's not all criminals who have guns illegally.

Isn't it the uncles responsibility to make sure that a 6 year old can't get a hold of his gun?

Tons of people die every year in fires that are started by children getting a hold of lighters - I don't really see the difference. Maybe we should outlaw lighters.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Isn't it the uncles responsibility to make sure that a 6 year old can't get a hold of his gun?

Tons of people die every year in fires that are started by children getting a hold of lighters - I don't really see the difference. Maybe we should outlaw lighters.

i see a difference. handguns are for killing people. quickly. lighters aren't. (no they're just for killing people veeery slowly, when used to light cigarettes...)

yes, it is the uncle's responsibility to make sure the gun is out of the way. but maybe he shouldn't have a handgun in the first place, eh? and maybe the kid's mother shouldn't have to spend all day working very hard in another town only to not be able to pay the rent so that she has to go stay with her brother who happens to have a gun. maybe she should be able to have a job that would enable her to spend more time with her kids, and make enough money to live on. but that's just not the way of the world...<sigh>

but my point was that accidents happen all the time and often it is not criminals using guns to kill people but it's accidents and other things like that. unlike you, JD i don't have all the time in the world to back up my arguments with statistics and articles, so i'll leave it at that.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
i see a difference. handguns are for killing people. quickly. lighters aren't. (no they're just for killing people veeery slowly, when used to light cigarettes...)

yes, it is the uncle's responsibility to make sure the gun is out of the way. but maybe he shouldn't have a handgun in the first place, eh? and maybe the kid's mother shouldn't have to spend all day working very hard in another town only to not be able to pay the rent so that she has to go stay with her brother who happens to have a gun. maybe she should be able to have a job that would enable her to spend more time with her kids, and make enough money to live on. but that's just not the way of the world...<sigh>

but my point was that accidents happen all the time and often it is not criminals using guns to kill people but it's accidents and other things like that. unlike you, JD i don't have all the time in the world to back up my arguments with statistics and articles, so i'll leave it at that.

I just don't see where "accidents happening" is a good enough reason to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. As you said ACCIDENTS happen all the time. and not just with guns. Adults shold take responsibilty and make sure that children or others can not get a hold of dangerous items. There is too much of a mentality of "let's blame someone else" in the world and in particular in the US. All you have to do is look at the recently filed lawsuits against McDonalds. They claim McDonalds caused their obesity - yet they made the decision to eat there. It's too easy to blame others. It was the UNCLE's responsibity to make sure the 6 year old couldn't get the gun - plain and simple.

The other stuff you mentioned concerning the child's mother - has nothing to do with it. I won't even bother to comment on it.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I just don't see where "accidents happening" is a good enough reason to prevent law abiding citizens from owning guns. As you said ACCIDENTS happen all the time. and not just with guns. Adults shold take responsibilty and make sure that children or others can not get a hold of dangerous items. There is too much of a mentality of "let's blame someone else" in the world and in particular in the US. All you have to do is look at the recently filed lawsuits against McDonalds. They claim McDonalds caused their obesity - yet they made the decision to eat there. It's too easy to blame others. It was the UNCLE's responsibity to make sure the 6 year old couldn't get the gun - plain and simple.
That's just what America needs... a war on ignorance...

I want to file a countersuit on McDonalds' behalf for mental anguish... I get soooo riled up when I even think about those lawsuits.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nibs
That's just what America needs... a war on ignorance...

I want to file a countersuit on McDonalds' behalf for mental anguish... I get soooo riled up when I even think about those lawsuits.
I told my sister today that I could probably quit my job and become a billionaire if I just sue for some of things that haven't gone right in my life. I'm sure everyone else can also come up with at least 10 things that they can blame someone else for too. Just think multi-millions of dollars times 10 - sounds pretty nice. :D

It's the new get rich quick scheme - except people are too ignorant to see that it's really the lawyers that push a lot of these lawsuits so THEY can make millions.

[Nibs]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's the new get rich quick scheme - except people are too ignorant to see that it's really the lawyers that push a lot of these lawsuits so THEY can make millions.
How about a war on lawyers?

[Elven Archer]

and maybe the kid's mother shouldn't have to spend all day working very hard in another town only to not be able to pay the rent so that she has to go stay with her brother who happens to have a gun. maybe she should be able to have a job that would enable her to spend more time with her kids, and make enough money to live on. but that's just not the way of the world...<sigh> are you trying to blame someone else on her not getting a good enough job in her own town?? that's ridiculous!! and then some.

How about a war on lawyers? sounds good to me.They claim McDonalds caused their obesity - yet they made the decision to eat there. i was watching Dr.Phil and he had one of those people who claim their daughter got fat from MceeD's and he also had one of the people who had to buy and extra plane ticket cause he was so large. anyway Dr.Phil asked the lawyer what he had to say about the guy who had to buy and extra ticket and he said he was exposed to the same advertising mcdonalds puts out there. the skinny people are exposed to the same stuff! and how can a mother say her kid's fat casue she eats at Mcdonalds? she buys the food not the kid!

[LuthienTinuviel]

i am officially pulling myself from this thread.
this is JUST A THREAD remember. no need to get all jumpy and bi***y about anything on it.

sheesh, some people can just never control themselves.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Elven Archer
are you trying to blame someone else on her not getting a good enough job in her own town?? that's ridiculous!! and then some.


it is not her fault that she couldn't get a good enough job in that town. must i go into all the details that led up her being in that situation? it's not that i'm trying to constantly blame someone else. i don't feel particuarly qualified to talk about this as i don't live there, and i don't really know enough about the issue as a whole, but it's not always someone's own fault that they can't get a decent job.

JD, perhaps you ought to think a little more about causes that are not directly related to a problem. there is usually a connection, somewhere. :rolleyes:

LuthienTinuviel, you're right. it's just a thread. i'm getting far too crazy about this and perhaps i ought to just stop before this turns into an all out flame war, which, considering my strong feelings on the subject, it's bound to do. (at least where i'm involved) so, i'm not leaving the thread entirely, but...<sigh> i'm not going to keep arguing. i know what i think is right and i see there's no hope of convincing others who are equally set in their ways.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
JD, perhaps you ought to think a little more about causes that are not directly related to a problem. there is usually a connection, somewhere. :rolleyes:
There are always external problems - but it's far to easy to take the cop out and blame guns. What connection do you see - since obviously you feel I am missing something?

I can think a thousand causes that people like to blame - that are equally cop outs. Let's see - movies, music, video games, tv shows, poverty, broken homes, drugs, gangs. The list goes on and on. The truth is that people generally CHOOSE not to lock up their guns or they CHOOSE to go out and commit a crime with a gun.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

if people are going to be that irresponsible, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have handguns.

[Dunadan]

Interesting. Had a quick look at JD's handy guide to state gun laws; there's quite a broad range. Illinois seems to be among the strictest. However, I wouldn't call his example of limiting purchases to one a month a repressive regime.

It seems to me that the difference is: in the US you can get a gun, unless The Man can prove you shouldn't have one; in the UK, you can't have a gun, unless you can show that you really need one.

If it's criminality that is the problem, how come the death rate from guns is more than an order of magnitude greater, when the crime rate is about the same?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
if people are going to be that irresponsible, then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have handguns.
yeah - I guess if people are going to be irresponsible with cars - we should eliminate them or if people are going to be irresponsible when drinking we should eliminate that.

How far should big brother government get into people's lives?

I don't see a problem with requiring the government to have to prove that you can't have a gun - that is what this country is supposedly founded on. The fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. The criminals will get the guns regardless - as I've said.

Actually - there was resently an accusatin against Britain saying that they have been doctoring their crime statistics. Supposedly if a person commits several crimes - it was being counted as a single crime. You can't really compare crime statistics or any statistics unless the two you are comparing use the same formulas to come up with the numbers.

[Draken]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually - there was resently an accusatin against Britain

Any more problems with Britain you haven't mentioned in the Moot yet? Would hate to have missed any.


International statistics on just about anything can be misleading. Tolerance of minor crimes in particular varies, so high crime rates for assault, motoring offences etc might indicate zealous policing rather than higher criminality. But from what I can see homicide comparisons are based on a body count due to any form of unlawful killing - ie adding up deaths, not "crimes" - and so should be comparable.

You can't compare guns with cars because the purpose of cars is to get from A to B. Yes they can also be used to kill people, as can bread knives, bits or rope, a well-aimed biro etc. But that's not what they are intended to do. Guns on the other hand are intended to shoot things, and handguns are mostly intended to shoot people.

The arguments I've seen in favour of gun ownership seem to be:

The constitution says I can
They were useful in the civil war
We don't trust the federal government and might need to protect the delicate flower of American democracy with them
The bad guys have them so I need one

The last one I can understand. Maybe that does indeed outweigh any benefits from changing things. Maybe a transition from a gun-owning culture to a gun-free one would just be too difficult. I don't know, and it's not my problem.

But if hanguns aren't really the issue, what is? WHY do Americans kill each other at about five times the rate of other countries?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Draken
Any more problems with Britain you haven't mentioned in the Moot yet? Would hate to have missed any.

Well you tell me when people can stop complaining about the US. Especially since gun ownership in the US really doesn't concern anyone outside the US.

International statistics on just about anything can be misleading. Tolerance of minor crimes in particular varies, so high crime rates for assault, motoring offences etc might indicate zealous policing rather than higher criminality. But from what I can see homicide comparisons are based on a body count due to any form of unlawful killing - ie adding up deaths, not "crimes" - and so should be comparable.

You can't compare guns with cars because the purpose of cars is to get from A to B. Yes they can also be used to kill people, as can bread knives, bits or rope, a well-aimed biro etc. But that's not what they are intended to do. Guns on the other hand are intended to shoot things, and handguns are mostly intended to shoot people.

So you think by outlawing them then that criminals wouldn't be able to get them?


The arguments I've seen in favour of gun ownership seem to be:

The constitution says I can
They were useful in the civil war
We don't trust the federal government and might need to protect the delicate flower of American democracy with them
The bad guys have them so I need one

The last one I can understand. Maybe that does indeed outweigh any benefits from changing things. Maybe a transition from a gun-owning culture to a gun-free one would just be too difficult. I don't know, and it's not my problem.

You're right - it's no anyone's problem other than the US's and since most people don't understand the way our Constitution works - it is very hard for outsiders to understand. We have a WRITTEN Constitution. Neither the President nor Congress can pass anything that violates the Constitution. The President can NOT even pass anything - he can only sign into law what Congress has passed.

But if hanguns aren't really the issue, what is? WHY do Americans kill each other at about five times the rate of other countries?
That's the real question that should be asked. The US has had guns forever - is it actually more of a problem now then before? Or is it just that people look at the past through rose colored glasses. In the 1800's we had the wild west - was that a more peaceful time than now?

Why was there a wave of school shootings. With those - it was the fact that people get picked on constantly. I just don't mean a little - I mean a lot. No one wants to look at that. It's too much of a difficult problem to deal with. Also - people don't want to admit that either they or their children treat others like crap.

You can see by what are the popular shows on TV that people would rather see backstabbing and people being down right mean to each other - that society accepts it. Until society - and not through government intervention - wakes up and realises that maybe we shouldn't be so concerned about who gets kicked off of Survivor or cheers when in the movies someone gets decapitated - maybe then we will have less crime. The sniper situation wasn't so funny in real life - but I can imagine the cheers that would have been going on in the theater if it was a movie - because I've seen it happen.

I don't blame media for crime - I think media is more a reflection of society. Media reacts to what society wants. if being nice to people was more popular - you'd see more shows where people are nice to one another. Instead we have the Bachelor, Survivor, Weakest Link, etc.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Thank you, Draken. You said basically what I was trying to say except that i'm afraid i get too into the argument and cannot see past my feelings on the issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Thank you, Draken. You said basically what I was trying to say except that i'm afraid i get too into the argument and cannot see past my feelings on the issue.
Well you can fight to have Oregon pass stricter gun laws. I feel people should fight within their states first for the things they want.

No state of course can outlaw guns entirely without first changing the Constitution. Nothing can happen to change the Constitution without 2/3 of the states approving it.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Yes, i know, JD. i have read the constitution. several times. and written papers on it.

slightly off-topic, but have you read many of the federalist papers? i'm thinking particuarly of...argh, don't remember which one, the one about factions. this thread reminded me of it. . .

yes, seeing as the most i can do is work on getting stricter gun laws in my state. (i'm actually from WA state, i'm just going to college in OR) thanks for the suggestion. or of course i could just leave the country altogether. according to locke i have the right to leave if i feel the government is not fulfilling its purpose.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
Yes, i know, JD. i have read the constitution. several times. and written papers on it.

slightly off-topic, but have you read many of the federalist papers? i'm thinking particuarly of...argh, don't remember which one, the one about factions. this thread reminded me of it. . .

yes - although I haven't read the Federalist Paper from cover to cover in one read. I also have the Anti-Federalist Papers.

yes, seeing as the most i can do is work on getting stricter gun laws in my state. (i'm actually from WA state, i'm just going to college in OR) thanks for the suggestion. or of course i could just leave the country altogether. according to locke i have the right to leave if i feel the government is not fulfilling its purpose.
What purpose is the government supposed to fulfill? Two hundred years ago the Federal Government was set up with limited powers and it was supposed to remain that way. As far as I'm concerned the government has been been too big for at least 70 years. The federal government should have less power not more.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I find that in many ways the government is indeed too big, but in some cases there should be more--like with handguns. in that way i suppose i have slightly conflicting ideals. i don't think we are, in general, responsible enough to have handguns. on the other hand, i think government should stay out of people's business when it comes to things like abortion.

of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well. of course, there's an interesting article i read about how maybe the federalists had the wrong idea. i'll read it again, i think; i don't remember it well enough right now.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well. of course, there's an interesting article i read about how maybe the federalists had the wrong idea. i'll read it again, i think; i don't remember it well enough right now.
Well there were problems with the Articles of Confederation that the current government under the Constitution never had. For one thing - the Articles of Confederation gave no power to the federal government to force states to pay off the war debt, there was no power to control commerce, or to set up treaties with countries. Under the Articles - if a country wanted to negotiate a treaty with the US - they would basically have to go to all 13 states and get them to sign. The federal government had no power to enforce - it could only suggest or plead with the states to do something. Once one state refused to do something - then all the states refused.

Right before the Constitutional Convention - New Jersey and Connecticut were gathering troops to invade New York. New York was blocking our ports and requiring ships to first pay tarrifs at their ports before being allowed to dock in New Jersey or Connecticut to unload their cargo. This had been going on throughout colonial times too. As a matter of fact the Royal Governor of NY, Sir Edmund Andros, kidnapped one of our Royal Governors, Phillip Carteret, because he wouldn't do what NY wanted.

Basically the Articles of Confederation was just an agreement between the states - it was not a functioning government like what was developed under the Constitution.

I have certain problems with the federal government - I think more power should be left up to the states. The Federal Government should not be dictating social programs - these should be left up to the states. Education should be left up to the states. New Jersey pays the most to the federal government - yet gets the least back. We pay $2000 for every $1 we get back in benefits. The Federak Government does nothing for us - other than take our money and split it among the other states.

By the way - I am also upset with the federal government getting involved in California's "medical marijuana" laws and Oregons "Right to die" laws. These I also believe are state issues and are prime exampled of the federal government overstepping their authority.

The federal government should only be concerned with national defense, international and interstate commerce and fights between the states. NJ and NY are always in court against each other - if we weren't part of the same country we would have been at war a long time ago.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
i see a difference. handguns are for killing people. quickly. lighters aren't. (no they're just for killing people veeery slowly, when used to light cigarettes...)


*giggles* Wow, well let me argue. :D

Okay, a car, (like a gun) is a deadly weapon, more children die in car related accidents then gun related accidents, should cars be outlawed.

Jersey,
I sO agree with you!!! finally!

OOC:
Eruvial, thank you for the great debate sessions. :D

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

JerseyDevil, I do not appreciate how you talk about many things as if you're the only one who knows them. I guess you aren't taking the hint when I say I've read the constitution, and the articles of confederation, and some of the federalist papers. I know that stuff already.

Aeryn: i'm always glad for a good debate :D
Do you have any information to back up that statement, though?

And cars are for transportation...they only become deadly when used irresponsibly. Of course I hate cars and I'd gladly give up their benefits if only to use less *fossil fuels. Although really those SUVs are especially dangerous, not to mention gas-guzzling. They ought to be banned.

edit: *this was typed rather late at night...i originally forgot to say less...:o

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
JerseyDevil, I do not appreciate how you talk about many things as if you're the only one who knows them. I guess you aren't taking the hint when I say I've read the constitution, and the articles of confederation, and some of the federalist papers. I know that stuff already.

I'm sorry you can't have a "conversation". But my saying those things wasn't necessarily directed at you. I do believe you may know those things - but most people think - "well we just outlaw guns and that'll be that'. Most people don't know how the Constitution works.

Also - you made the statement that if we had a limited Federal Government, as was the original plan under the Constitution - it could lead to the prolems that we had under the articles.

of course we don't want to take too much power from the fed. gov. if it looks like being in any danger of being like the articles of confederation again, because that wasn't working so well.

The Articles had their own problems - that would not and COULD NOT occur under the Constitutional government. If you think that the current government can be limited in power and run the risk of being a government as it was under the Articles - then you don't know this stuff.


And cars are for transportation...they only become deadly when used irresponsibly. Of course I hate cars and I'd gladly give up their benefits if only to use fossil fuels. Although really those SUVs are especially dangerous, not to mention gas-guzzling. They ought to be banned.
So again you feel that the government should step in and issue a ban and make decisions for people. Also - guns only kill when used irresponsibly. Hand guns main purpose may be used to kill someone - but they are also for protection. There are also hunting guns - I guess you would have the government ban those too?

We live in a democracy that allows individual freedoms. I hate SUVs too - but I am against the government telling people what to drive - or getting into people's personal lives.

[Aeryn]

In car accidents.
All ages=16.5 Under 1=5.7 1-4=5.3 5-14=5.2 15-24=29.2

In gun related accidents, I coudln't condense it, I felt it was pretty much important. (the entire statement)

Overall, 30,708 people died of firearms in 1998, a 5 percent drop from 1997 and a 22 percent drop from the high of 39,595 in 1993. The age-adjusted death rate from firearms was 11.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 1998, a 7.4 percent drop from 12.2 in 1997 and down sharply from the high of 15.6 in 1993."

These are strange statistics, actually. Those on the far left are about to have a fit because these government reports make liars out of them. Every state that instituted concealed carry firearms laws immediately noticed a measurable decrease in death by firearms. This is enough to drive the liberals and socialists positively nuts! Worse yet, the report comes from a branch of the very liberal Department of Health and Human Services.

Anyway, now that 31 states issue concealed weapons carry permits, the trend is noticeable nationally. Because, lets face it folks, crooks don't want to mess with people who can shoot back.

The report was not all good news, though. It did come out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after all. So, they had to get their liberal shots in --- so to speak. For instance:

"Firearm deaths for children and teens dropped significantly between 1997 and 1998. 3,792 children and adolescents under age 20 died in 1998 from firearms, down 10 percent from 4,223 in 1997, and down 35 percent from the high of 5,833 in 1994. This translates into a drop from 16 deaths per day in 1994 to 10 deaths per day in 1998."

Ten kids a day is a lot, of course, but there is also a lot not being said here. For instance, if drug related shootings and gang bangers are removed, adolescent death by firearms would be very, very low.

We note with interest that the socialists at Handgun Control, Inc. or their counterparts in government like Senators Feinstein, Boxer and Schumer, never go into the inner-city to disarm the feral little darlings doing all the shooting. No, instead of going to where the actual problem is, they would rather propose laws to bother the normal, law-abiding people. That's one glaring difference between the craven socialist class and real American folks. They are cowards.

About 92 percent of the firearms deaths among people under age 24 were among 15 to 24 year olds. Ninety-four percent of those deaths were due to suicides or homicides. That's our "Great Society" programs at work.

The liberals tell us trigger locks are one fix to stop kids from using guns, but that's baloney. I've seen kids get trigger locks off just as fast without a key as I can with the key. One proper way to make guns safer around kids is exactly the way many of us grew up back in the 1940s and 1950s: Teach kids to shoot properly so they realize and respect both the power and danger of firearms.

Back then, nearly every boy had a rifle to tote around and some of us also had revolvers. Yet, we never heard of anyone being shot because no one ever was.

Mr. Fiedor publishes a newsletter Heads Up --- A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia that is free to all at http://209.15.142.23/reports/headsup/list-hu.html. His e-mail is fiedor19@eos.net.

Originally published in the Medical Sentinel 2000;5(6):213. Copyright©2000 Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)



(Eruvial, these are newer statistics than the ones I was looking at incase you wanted to know...:D)

[BeardofPants]

Aeryn, I'm curious: how would you propose to lower the death toll via gun related accidents?

[Aeryn]

Well, more secure ways of distributing guns, backround checks and the like. The gun owners being responsible with the guns by putting them away out-of-sight and out-of-mind of there kids. Just really general common-sense stuff. :D That's clarifying huh?

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm sorry you can't have a "conversation". But my saying those things wasn't necessarily directed at you. I do believe you may know those things - but most people think - "well we just outlaw guns and that'll be that'. Most people don't know how the Constitution works.

Also - you made the statement that if we had a limited Federal Government, as was the original plan under the Constitution - it could lead to the prolems that we had under the articles.


First, I am capable of having a "conversation," though perhaps I do take offense too easily. As for my comment on limiting the constitution, I did not say that because I thought we could, I was merely pointing out that limiting the federal government in some places might not be such a good thing, I was not saying that it would be possible. I do know this stuff. Perhaps not as well as you do, but I do know it.


So again you feel that the government should step in and issue a ban and make decisions for people. Also - guns only kill when used irresponsibly. Hand guns main purpose may be used to kill someone - but they are also for protection. There are also hunting guns - I guess you would have the government ban those too?

We live in a democracy that allows individual freedoms. I hate SUVs too - but I am against the government telling people what to drive - or getting into people's personal lives.

I think perhaps we are too paranoid, then, if we think need handguns that badly, for protection. I would not necessarily have the government ban hunting guns, in fact I'm not even saying hand guns should be banned altogether, but I do think that perhaps it would work better if you had to prove that you really needed a gun to get one.

Yes, we live in a democracy, and I'm all for individual freedoms, but there ought to be limits, would you not agree? SUVs use far too much gas and contribute a great deal to greenhouse gas emmisions. It's great if people can drive whatever they want but not when it's something that's that harmful to other people and to the planet. I don't have my copy of Common Sense with me, so I'll paraphrase Thomas Paine: "Society is created by our desires and government by our vices." Paine was all for democracy as can be seen very easily in Common Sense, but he acknowledged that we do need government to keep ourselves in control.

[Elvellon]

I’m curious, where would you put the limit? What should be permissible to have and what should not?

(I’m asking this to both sides)

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by Elvellon
I’m curious, where would you put the limit? What should be permissible to have and what should not?

(I’m asking this to both sides)

That is a really hard question. . .:)

I think in cases where we are harming other people and/or infringing upon their rights, and also where the protection of the environment is concerned, there should be limits. Unfortunately, these lines are far from clear. I'll think about it, though.

[jerseydevil]

This is the section from Common Sense. Thomas Paine of course wrote this to explain the evils of the English government and to argue in support of independence.


Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness possitively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last is a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government even in it's best state is but a necessary evil; in it's worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a Government, we might expect in a country without Government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of Kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of Paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistably obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do, by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows, that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to others.


My argument is that we already have tons of laws that govern the sale of guns - the real problem is that the existing laws aren't enforced. We can pass 50,000 more laws - and if those aren't enforced - it will do nothing.

The only additional thing that I support in terms of gun laws - are madatory background checks at gun shows. I do not think people should "prove they need a gun" to get one.

In terms of SUVs again - I would support tax reductions for more fuel efficient vehicles - which we do have for Hybrids. Why must people be punished? Why not give incentives to do something instead? I hate SUVs and trucks and vans - and it's not only because they're gas guzzlers. My main problem with them is the fact that when I'm behind one - I can't see the traffic ahead of them, or the stop lights. I can't see around the damn things when I'm pull out of a parking lot. They're a nuisance on the road and they barely have any more room than a standard car.


I think in cases where we are harming other people and/or infringing upon their rights, and also where the protection of the environment is concerned, there should be limits. Unfortunately, these lines are far from clear. I'll think about it, though.

It's not a easy balancing act.

Remember when ever a law is passed - you are infringing on someone elses right. An example of this happened this summer in the Northwest between water usage and the farmers. Salmon runs versus hydro-electricity. Trees versus the logging industry and jobs.

Land is so incredibly expensive in NJ that farmers choose to sell because developers offer them so much money. NJ came up with Green Acres Program (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/greenacres/intro.htm) where the state or communities buy the development rights either to the farms or forests. This is a way to make both parties happy.

[BeardofPants]

Call me an ignorant kiwi, but what exactly is an SUV?

[Mirahzi]

SUV: Sports Utility Vehicle. The big burly ones.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Call me an ignorant kiwi, but what exactly is an SUV?
SUV Online (http://www.suv.com/indextoc.html)

They're gas guzzling monstracities that idiots drive. I know a lot of people that drive them - and half the time there is hardly anymore room in them than a standard car. It's not like these people are using them for off road driving or anything. There are people of course that need trucks - even if I hate them too. As I said though - my big problem with SUVs and trucks is the fact that I can't see around them.

[BeardofPants]

Thanks JD and Mirahzi. We have something similar over here which guzzles up the diesel, but I dont' think it's a terribly huge problem as of yet.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
It's not a easy balancing act.


I just said that.

Yes, it's hard to balance between the interests of various factions. (Madison figured if we had enough factions they would end up creating a balance...I wish I had the Federalist Papers with me, I'd find a quote.) I know I have my priorities (yes, i think the Spotted Owl is more important than logging jobs) and beliefs concerning various issues, and I know many people disagree with me. But the one thing I simply fail to understand is how we can go ahead and use up all sorts of non-renewable (at least non-renewable for all practical purposes) resources (like fossil fuels) when it's obvious that's going to run out eventually. Maybe someone can explain this to me. :rolleyes:

SUVs and trucks are often used by people who don't need them. Completely useless waste of gas.
I know making a law prohibiting the manufacturing of such gas-guzzling monstrosities would infringe on people's rights, but wouldn't raising taxes on gas be doing essentially the same thing, just indirectly? So why then do you object to that, JD?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Thanks JD and Mirahzi. We have something similar over here which guzzles up the diesel, but I dont' think it's a terribly huge problem as of yet.

Well according to my atlas - which is copyrighted 2000 - New Zealand has 5,000,000 less people than the state of New Jersey. New Jersey is only 7,468 sq miles. New Zealand (south and north islands) is - 102,570 sq miles.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I just said that.

Yes, it's hard to balance between the interests of various factions. (Madison figured if we had enough factions they would end up creating a balance...I wish I had the Federalist Papers with me, I'd find a quote.) I know I have my priorities (yes, i think the Spotted Owl is more important than logging jobs) and beliefs concerning various issues, and I know many people disagree with me. But the one thing I simply fail to understand is how we can go ahead and use up all sorts of non-renewable (at least non-renewable for all practical purposes) resources (like fossil fuels) when it's obvious that's going to run out eventually. Maybe someone can explain this to me. :rolleyes:

Well because we live in a free society and people have chosen to buy and drive those cars. You and I may not agree with it - but that is their business. Just like me having a sports car is my business. If gas prices go up - then they have to live with that too.

I have my electricty supplied to me by Green Mountain (http://www.GreenMountain.com) thanks to New Jersey's Energy Choice program. But I have chosen to pay about 10 dollars extra a month to have my electricity supplied by renewable energy sources. The government didn't force me.

What I worry about more - is what I do. I will give my friends a hard time if they consider buying an SUV or own one. And I'll tell people about Green Mountain Energy.

I do not litter and I recycle. I will complain if I see a friend litter and I will give them a hard time if they don't recycle. It doesn't require government to make people do things.

Why do you think the spotted owl is more important than logging jobs that put food on people's tables? I think the spotted owl is a nice bird - but it's not going to make me stop a logging operation. Some logging is required.

SUVs and trucks are often used by people who don't need them. Completely useless waste of gas.
I know making a law prohibiting the manufacturing of such gas-guzzling monstrosities would infringe on people's rights, but wouldn't raising taxes on gas be doing essentially the same thing, just indirectly? So why then do you object to that, JD?
Because I think it would be better if the government gave incentives to people to buy more fuel efficient cars and to give more benefits to companies that build fuel efficient cars.

Why is the answer always to tax or to punish? People that work hard and make a good living - are punished. We have a graduated income tax. Why? Why should I pay a larger percentage of my pay check in taxes when I went to college and worked to get the job I have? What was the deal with the 10% luxury tax - was that to punish people for working hard and accomplishing their dreams? This may seem off topic - but it's all the same. Liberals always look at solving the problems by punishing people - namely through taxes. I think government should stay out of people's lives.

AND - I was agreeing with you when I said "It's not a easy balancing act." (as hard as that might be to believe).

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

I think it would be nice if the government would stay out of our lives entirely, but this is clearly not possible. First, there is the obvious bit--the advantages to having government in the first place. But then there is the problem of how we as a whole are not particuarly responsible in many ways. I'll use the SUV example again. Driving these gas-guzzling car-trucks is an unreasonable use of non-renewable resources. We don't need them. If they had never been made I'm sure people wouldn't think about how they needed bigger vehicles without very much more space inside them that are quite dangerous. But obviously people like them and buy them. This is where I think someone needs to step in and point out that they are ridiculous. Like the government. So maybe higher gas prices would be a better way of doing that, but then I want to see that happen, eh? I'm not saying people need to be punished, I'm saying that it needs to be pointed out how ridiculous things like SUVs are. I don't think the luxury tax is to punish people for acheiving their dreams--it's a way of raising taxes that's not going to affect hard-working people that don't have as much money. (another point...it's almost impossible to get by on low-income jobs now)

That's great that you have your electricity provided by Green Mountain. But maybe everyone should do that, instead of just the few who realize that it's better, right? It would be far more effective.

As for the Spotted Owl, there are logging practices that would be far better for the ecology and for the bird itself, which is not just a 'nice bird' but an important species in that ecosystem. I don't think that our species necessarily has priority on using natural resources. I know why we do, but I disagree with our mentality that the earth is ours to do what we want with and we don't have to worry about a few species going extinct because our needs are far more important.

[Eruviel Greenleaf]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
AND - I was agreeing with you when I said "It's not a easy balancing act." (as hard as that might be to believe).

Ah. Thank you. Like I said--I get offended far too easily and can be quite paranoid. I apologize for that. . .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Eruviel Greenleaf
I think it would be nice if the government would stay out of our lives entirely, but this is clearly not possible. First, there is the obvious bit--the advantages to having government in the first place. But then there is the problem of how we as a whole are not particuarly responsible in many ways. I'll use the SUV example again. Driving these gas-guzzling car-trucks is an unreasonable use of non-renewable resources. We don't need them. If they had never been made I'm sure people wouldn't think about how they needed bigger vehicles without very much more space inside them that are quite dangerous. But obviously people like them and buy them. This is where I think someone needs to step in and point out that they are ridiculous. Like the government. So maybe higher gas prices would be a better way of doing that, but then I want to see that happen, eh? I'm not saying people need to be punished, I'm saying that it needs to be pointed out how ridiculous things like SUVs are. I don't think the luxury tax is to punish people for acheiving their dreams--it's a way of raising taxes that's not going to affect hard-working people that don't have as much money. (another point...it's almost impossible to get by on low-income jobs now)

That's great that you have your electricity provided by Green Mountain. But maybe everyone should do that, instead of just the few who realize that it's better, right? It would be far more effective.

As for the Spotted Owl, there are logging practices that would be far better for the ecology and for the bird itself, which is not just a 'nice bird' but an important species in that ecosystem. I don't think that our species necessarily has priority on using natural resources. I know why we do, but I disagree with our mentality that the earth is ours to do what we want with and we don't have to worry about a few species going extinct because our needs are far more important.
Everything that you pointed out in this post shows that you feel that govenment controlling people's lives (as long as it's controlling it the way you want it) it the answer.

I don't think it's the government's job to tell people what to drive. I also don't support taxes to enforce a change in people's behaviour. The sole purpose of taxes should be to raise revenues - not as a stick to beat people over the head with.

For your information - the 10% luxury tax had to be repealed. Why? Becuase it was affecting the workers (the low paid workers) that built those luxury items. They were losing their jobs because people stopped buying the yatchs and big ticket items. So taxing the rich, having minimum wage, etc - does nothing to put money into poorer people's pockets. All it does is raise the cost of living - which causes the poor to be right back where they started. When McDonalds has to raise the minimum it pays it's employees because of minimum wage rate they have a choice - either lay off people - or pass the cost onto the consumer. Either people lose their jobs or the cost of a Big Mac (where more "poorer" people eat than wealthy people) is going up.

Welfare is great - too bad it has never solved poverty or even reduced it.

Oh - and low paying jobs NEVER was enough to live on. They were never meant to be enough to live on. The reason they're low paying - is because basically anyone can do them. Anyone can sweep a floor - very few people in contrast can program a computer.

[cassiopeia]

BoP: We call SUV's four wheel drives (4WD). I hate 4WD's with a passion. It's OK to own one if you are travelling around the outback or something, but if you are just driving around the city, why do you need one? Actually I have been in one and it's fun to be so high off the road, so I suppose that is appealing to people. Apprently they are harder to steer as well.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

im am for abortion
while sometimes pregnacny can be accidental, what if a person was raped? Can we expect a person to want to go through labor, birth and want to raise a child that they dont know who the father is, or the cotraception was not in their controll?
Also. should teenagers be forced to ruin their life for a baby that they couldnt even take care of?
Plus, if we outlaw aboritons, girls will be forced to either do illegal ones in unsanitary condition, or bend hangers and do it them selves (i know its gross..but hey it happens)

[Elven Archer]

studies show that most people who are raped don't get pregnant. some do though and they can have the baby and give it a loving home or give it up for adoption so someone else can. when people adopt kids the kids grow up not knowing who their biological family is but they accept the family they do have. No teenagers shouldn't be forced to ruin their lives and they aren't. they made the choice to have sex so they're ruining their own lives.but i don't see how a precious little baby is gonna ruin your life. if you can't take care of it and can't get help to then you can give it up for adoption so somebody else can.if they were raped then it was forced but like i at the beginning. i'm a Christian so i believe abortion is wrong. i also believe when you have an abortion you're killing a baby.
people argue that it's not a human yet,so it's legal. that was the same argument people used to legalize slavery. they said they weren't human so it's legal.

[Legolas_Frodo_Aragorn]

there is nothing proving that people who get raped dont get pregnant as much as people having unprotected sex, if the man ejaculates into the woman..they have the same chance (ive been listening in health...)