Stance on Abortion?

[Des-Bal]

I sense trolling..... no just a disturbance in the force

I'm all for discussion, but
pro-life pro-choice,
fixed

doesn't constitute "discussion" as you would put it.

And "Abortion is murder" doesn't constitute a jumping off point. It's also not an opinion because murder sort of has a definition, when someone says "abortion is murder" the only response is "Wrong."

[Raeyh]

I don't mind that. I'll likely just forget about it, anyway.

Ah, so not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you express a desire to REMAIN ignorant. Wonderful.

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

[VonHyden]

I sense trolling..... no just a disturbance in the force

I'm all for discussion, but
pro-life pro-choice,
fixed

doesn't constitute "discussion" as you would put it.

Which is why we've had 100 pages of discussion and debate about the legality and morality of abortion.

I was just pointing out very specific instances (being specific is very important in NS, debating, and life in general )

[Des-Bal]

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

I have a poor memory, you're describing a complete inability to learn new information.

The same reason the SWAT team doesn't blitz every teenager whacking off into a sock, the fact that something could possibly in the future be alive isn't an argument.

[Williamson]

you know what funny everybody says how their sick of abortion topics. Yet it is one of the most talked about topic on nationstates.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Ah, so not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you express a desire to REMAIN ignorant. Wonderful.

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

So it's of value because it could become life?

If a scientist invents a method of getting a woman pregnant that works 100% of the time and has no side effects other than pregnancy and the pregnancy goes perfectly, no complications whatsoever, and then goes around forcing women to have that method used on them at gunpoint, is it right for them to abort if they know full well that the pregnancy will have no complications?
I'm scared that you'll say no.

[Deus Malum]

Which is why we've had 100 pages of discussion and debate about the legality and morality of abortion.

I was just pointing out very specific instances (being specific is very important in NS, debating, and life in general )

Fair enough.

[Des-Bal]

you know what funny everybody says how their sick of abortion topics. Yet it is one of the most talked about topic on nationstates.

I find it funny that people who complain about abortion topics keep commenting on them.

[Williamson]

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

So it's of value because it could become life?

If a scientist invents a method of getting a woman pregnant that works 100% of the time and has no side effects other than pregnancy and the pregnancy goes perfectly, no complications whatsoever, and then goes around forcing women to have that method used on them at gunpoint, is it right for them to abort if they know full well that the pregnancy will have no complications?
I'm scared that you'll say no.

That is way diffent then somebody get pregeant from sex.

[Raeyh]

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?

I have a poor memory, you're describing a complete inability to learn new information.

The same reason the SWAT team doesn't blitz every teenager whacking off into a sock, the fact that something could possibly in the future be alive isn't an argument.

Well, they say the mind is the first thing to go. Yours might stop working properly, too.

There is no potential life in your situation. You need two people for that.

[VonHyden]

I sense trolling..... no just a disturbance in the force

I'm all for discussion, but
pro-life pro-choice,
fixed

doesn't constitute "discussion" as you would put it.

And "Abortion is murder" doesn't constitute a jumping off point. It's also not an opinion because murder sort of has a definition, when someone says "abortion is murder" the only response is "Wrong."

Actually you are right Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, and since its legal here its "Technically" not murder.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murderv
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1303

[Des-Bal]

Well, they say the mind is the first thing to go. Yours might stop working properly, too.

There is no potential life in your situation. You need two people for that.

If you have dementia or a severe traumatic brain injury arguing on the internet isn't a great way to spend your time if you don't you should still be able to learn new information.

The sperm had the same potential to become a baby as the fetus did. All kinds of things have to happen to that clutch of cells for it to become a baby the sperm only needs to do one more thing then they do.

[Sailsia]

Ah, so not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you express a desire to REMAIN ignorant. Wonderful.

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.¹

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?²

¹It probably had more to do with you not studying... believe it or not more people don't have a photographic memory, and they have to review material multiple times to memorize it.
²It's not the law. It's the Supreme Court. And a woman doesn't throw away her future by having an abortion- if anything she's saving it.

[Des-Bal]

Actually you are right Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being, and since its legal here its "Technically" not murder.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/murderv
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1303

I know? That was the point. It's not "technically" murder in the same way driving 45 in a 50 isn't "technically" speeding.

[Sailsia]

Well, they say the mind is the first thing to go. Yours might stop working properly, too.

There is no potential life in your situation. You need two people for that.

If you have dementia or a severe traumatic brain injury arguing on the internet isn't a great way to spend your time if you don't you should still be able to learn new information.

The sperm had the same potential to become a baby as the fetus did. All kinds of things have to happen to that clutch of cells for it to become a baby the sperm only needs to do one more thing then they do.

Under his idea of murder, we should be arresting babies left and right, as there is the well-documented phenomena of one fetus consuming their twin in the very early stages of pregnancy.

[Williamson]

I can't help it that my memory isn't the greatest. If it was, I would have graduated from college.¹

Besides, even if the law is as it is, there is no reason it can't be changed. Why should a woman whose life is not in danger be allowed to throw away future life?²

¹It probably had more to do with you not studying... believe it or not more people don't have a photographic memory, and they have to review material multiple times to memorize it.
²It's not the law. It's the Supreme Court. And a woman doesn't throw away her future by having an abortion- if anything she's saving it.

i think he meant the babies future

[Samuraikoku]

I have a poor memory, you're describing a complete inability to learn new information.

The same reason the SWAT team doesn't blitz every teenager whacking off into a sock, the fact that something could possibly in the future be alive isn't an argument.

Well, they say the mind is the first thing to go. Yours might stop working properly, too.

There is no potential life in your situation. You need two people for that.

Every time you masturbate, spermatozoa might come out.

[Sailsia]

¹It probably had more to do with you not studying... believe it or not more people don't have a photographic memory, and they have to review material multiple times to memorize it.
²It's not the law. It's the Supreme Court. And a woman doesn't throw away her future by having an abortion- if anything she's saving it.

i think he meant the babies future

Oh, well I believe that the person who compared the "future life" argument to having swat arrest teens rubbing one out made a pretty solid argument.

[Raeyh]

Well, they say the mind is the first thing to go. Yours might stop working properly, too.

There is no potential life in your situation. You need two people for that.

If you have dementia or a severe traumatic brain injury arguing on the internet isn't a great way to spend your time if you don't you should still be able to learn new information.

The sperm had the same potential to become a baby as the fetus did. All kinds of things have to happen to that clutch of cells for it to become a baby the sperm only needs to do one more thing then they do.

No, just bad memory. If you can't retain something from short term memory into long term memory, you can't learn new things. You can still function just fine, though, since you end up doing the exact same thing every day (welcome to the workforce) you don't really need long term memory.

No, the sperm had no chance. It needs to come into contact with an egg to do anything, so if there are no eggs around it's useless. 0% chance of becoming a baby. None. Zip. Nadda.

I don't see how a single teenager with no access to sex could possibly impregnate anyone. His sperm therefore do not have the potential to make life.

[Sailsia]

If you have dementia or a severe traumatic brain injury arguing on the internet isn't a great way to spend your time if you don't you should still be able to learn new information.

The sperm had the same potential to become a baby as the fetus did. All kinds of things have to happen to that clutch of cells for it to become a baby the sperm only needs to do one more thing then they do.

No, just bad memory. If you can't retain something from short term memory into long term memory, you can't learn new things. You can still function just fine, though, since you end up doing the exact same thing every day (welcome to the workforce) you don't really need long term memory.

No, the sperm had no chance. It needs to come into contact with an egg to do anything, so if there are no eggs around it's useless. 0% chance of becoming a baby. None. Zip. Nadda.

I don't see how a single teenager with no access to sex could possibly impregnate anyone. His sperm therefore do not have the potential to make life.

What is the moral difference from the two?

[Des-Bal]

No, just bad memory. If you can't retain something from short term memory into long term memory, you can't learn new things. You can still function just fine, though, since you end up doing the exact same thing every day (welcome to the workforce) you don't really need long term memory.

No, the sperm had no chance. It needs to come into contact with an egg to do anything, so if there are no eggs around it's useless. 0% chance of becoming a baby. None. Zip. Nadda.

I don't see how a single teenager with no access to sex could possibly impregnate anyone. His sperm therefore do not have the potential to make life.

Stop badly explaining how the brain works.

Right, so the sperm could have become a life if it had just gotten to that egg how is that different than the fetus that could have become a life if it had just gone through the long process of developing into a baby?

[Raeyh]

What is the moral difference from the two?

The moral difference is that fetuses do have the potential to become life and they do simply by remaining in the womb.

Sperm cells do nothing on their own. The same goes for unfertilized eggs.

Right, so the sperm could have become a life if it had just gotten to that egg how is that different than the fetus that could have become a life if it had just gone through the long process of developing into a baby?

One is passive, one is active.

[Neo Art]

No, he's right. If you don't know what you're talking about don't post here. Seriously. You don't have to be a professional but you have to at least have an understanding of the subject- which you don't.

I am not going to be censored by intellectualists.

Poor poor you. To have your ignorance pointed out by people who actually know what they're talking about. Life must be so hard for you.

[Sailsia]

What is the moral difference from the two?

The moral difference is that fetuses do have the potential to become life and they do simply by remaining in the womb.

Sperm cells do nothing on their own. The same goes for unfertilized eggs.

The fertilized egg isn't doing anything on its own either.

[Mavorpen]

What is the moral difference from the two?

The moral difference is that fetuses do have the potential to become life and they do simply by remaining in the womb.

Sperm cells do nothing on their own. The same goes for unfertilized eggs.

You do know fetuses do nothing on their own, right? They require the right conditions, the same as sperm and eggs.