Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wrong. Birth certificates signify that someone is a person of a certain country. Also, a person needs to be able to biologically survive on their own (this does not include comatose people, they do not biologically rely on another person). Since removing a fetus from the womb at the time of elective abortions tends to kill it, it is NOT biologically independant, and thus is not a person.
Like I said, the government has yet to declare a fetus an actual person. And even when it does, a fetus still has no right to be inside the woman's body.
Like I said, SLAVERY IN ANY FORM is against the constitution. The slavery can be ended if the slave so chooses. Unfortunately, due to the fetus being biologically dependant on its mother, the fetus dies when the slavery is ended.
I don't think the government wants anyone to be a slave.

Oh, so now you're saying that Congress should be free to enslave women as incubators?
Nice. Real nice. I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post thanks to that first part. I've lost all respect I may have had for you.
I'm done in this thread. As long as the ones I'm debating with feel that women should be enslaved with a congressional act, I'm just done.

What pro-choicers are really saying - I believe that the murder of a innosent child (read my posts on the page before. A fetus is a child by law) should be left in the hands of the mother to choose.

Pro-life - I believe that the murder of a innosent child is unconstitutional and should be made illegal.

But the killing of another human is illegal as well xd
If this was a court case, what do you think is worse?
Someone who forced someone to give up a kidney for a kidney transplant?
Or
Someone who murdered another human?

[EDIT GAH!! Quote button]


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/26/politics/main602510.shtml
Cbs news a reliable enough source for you?

CBS dies every time I try to c&p...so I have had to read it and just note things...sorry if this makes it difficult.

So...basicly. It does NOT say that a hom sap in utero is a child. It is saying that a foetus is a hom sap. This changes nothing, everyone has always accepted that a foetus is hom sap.

Also, it is not ((yet)) affecting a woman's right to bodily integrety. No human can trump the rights of another humans right to bodily integrity, ever. Why should a human in utero get any special benefits?



Did I say hit? Did I mention a hangar or belt? No. It is completely legal to punish a child with a mild slap on the leg/buttocks. If I had a child and it misbehaved I would be completely within my rights to punish it with a simple spank to the leg. If my best friend were to misbehave and I did the same I could be arressted for assault ((though she'd probabaly like it)). Simple.

A person has different rights at different stages in their life. That's just the way of things. I can't go out and draw a state pension at 23, a pensioner can't go to university for free.



1st degree murder is always done with malice and aforethought. Freeway shootings are done with malice and aforethought, granted not much.



You did not read everything. In the United States of America no elective abortions are performed beyond the second trimester ((24 weeks)).



1) Why is it selfish? Is it not selfish to reproduce? To create new life forms to sap the energy of this planet just so that you can pass on your DNA? IS it not more selfish to birth more spawn for no other reason than because you wanted a baby? Is it not more selfish to make babies than to get a career and teach/invent/heal etc?

2) Even if ti is selfish, why is this a problem?

3) It is nigh on impossible to get a vasectomy/hystorectomy if you are under 29 and/or do not have children already.

Surgical methods of contraception are still not 100% effective unless you have everything removed. This can lead to problems, especially in women, such as osteoporises, osteoarthritis. If you do not have everything removed there is still a small chance of pregnancy, and if it is the woman who has had surgery it can lead to eptopic pregnancies ((which can be fatal for woman and foetus))



Abortion is more like a second chance than skipping out. This, I believe, is mroe accurate.

You take a test (have sex). You've prepared by revising for months (prescribing tot he Pill). You still fail the test (get pregnant). You go on night classes (get an abortion).

Equating cheating on a test to having sex is basicly saying sex is bad, and you should be punished (get detention) for having sex. Sex is not inherently bad, sex is good and fun and healthy.



And for women?

Also, you have just explained, in wonderful detail, how sex is not for reproduction; but for the release of hormones (which makes you feel good, huzzah).



You've never had good sex have you... blaugh

Sex has several functions; making babies ((to be vulgar)), pleasuring oneself and one's partner, bringing couples closer together ((and in the modern world, making money)).



I do not see what this has to do with anything...



Person or not, citizen or not, no one ahs the right to trump a persons right to bodily integrity, except the state when that person has or is suspected to have broken a specific law, with specific rights being removed ((eg; full cavity searches on people suspected of carrying drugs)).

The only way a foetus could trump the woman's right to bodily integrity is if it was made part of the state and you declared sex if you're a woman/pregnancy to be a crime. And when that happens you can say good by to the female population of America.



Someone's reading the Constitution wrong...and I'm not sure if it's me or you...

The way I'm reading it...Congress may enforce anti-slavery laws, and/or enforcing slavery/encarceration for commiting a crime. That has nothing to do with saying the foetus is a child or not.



No one has the right ((*sigh* again)), except the state ((as you pointed out)) to enslave someone else, even if that means their death ((i.e. a shooting victim cannot force thier attacker to hand over a lung)). This means NO ONE, foetus or not, person or not. The only way this can be trumped is as a punishment for a crime.



None of these are enforced by law. All transplant material is volunteered, you cannot even remove a corpses organs without previous permission. Conjoined twins is a matter of biology.



And yet it does, every day, by refusing state aid to the poor, by going to war, by executing prisoners, by keeping people who have never been proven guilty locked up ((Guantanamo Bay)).



First, she left because you appear to view women as nothing more than baby making machines.

Now, as you like dictionary definitions oh so very much... ((Dictionary.com as Websters went wonky...))


Pregnancy (if it is unwanted) is clearly being bound in servitude, involuntarily. The 1800's definition still holds today, even if the meaning is stretched to less... physical forms of slavery.



Congress still has not said that a foetus is a child/person. What they have said is that it is a hom sap, not child, hom sap.

OK, I gotta go home now. I'm rather ill and need rest.

One final note. Stop abusing the emoticon button.

This is particular bothered me.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_pity

Apologise if I don't make a lot of sense, I'm ill, I don't have sinuses any more...I have snot...I'm bungged up, grotty, irritable and forced to come into work...even though no one is here.



And time and again we have said there are risks in life, but no one would deny you the right to get into a car, just incase you had an accident and had to have your kidney replaced, thus preventing a person who's kindey is riddled with disease through no fault of their own, from getting said kidney.

Sex, people, is about pleasure AND making babies AND getting closer to your partner. How many times does it have to be said before someone understands. Sex is pleasurable, the clitoris has one purpose, to give you pleasure. People do it for pleasure, whether you think this is right or wrong does not matter, the fact still remains that it is pleasurable and makes you fell closer to the person you love.

Pregnancy can be termed an STI, but you don't deny people access to medical help if they contract other STI's, oh no. They are poor sick people that need to be helped, they don't have to suffer the consequences of their actions, other STI's are not used to punish dirty little whores, only pregnancy. Other STI's are accidents, pregnancy is fates way of telling you that you shouldn't have had sex. *rolls eyes*



Nope, changes nada. As I said, no one but the most moronic idiots have ever said that a foetus is not hom sap in origin. But, this does still not qualify it as a person, something with no functioning brain is not yet a person, there is nothing up there to create an individual, no person exists yet because no thought patterns have emerged, only basic random electrical impulses ((which can be found in any lower life form with a brain)). The body is merely a shell growing so that it can be ready for when the switch comes on and the first "thought" occurs, creating an individual person. This is true and correct in light of our current knowledge, however, debate still rages over when that actually happens, there is a lot of evidence ot suggest that not until a child is 12 months or older does this happen.



See above, it is not yet an individual person. Also, a woman is only a mother after she has given birth. So unless this theoretical woman has other children she is not a mother.

Emotional language has no place here, please keep to the correct terms ((and shout at me if I go off on that too...))



You're not quite getting my point. The method of discipline used is what is important here. NO ONE can punish an adult physicly...no matter how gentle that may be, no one at all, not even the government ((except in the case of killing people on death row...lets not get into that one)). But parents are allowed by the State to punish a child with a spanking. You CAN NOT spank an adult.



Ah, evolution, what a beautiful thing it is. It has allowed us to break free of the bonds of the natural world and forge our own paths, evolution has, in fact, freed us from itself. The weak no longer die but are allowed to pass on their genes. If natural selection had its way the stupid, the disabled, the sickly, would not reproduce. But civilization allows them to. So we say, thank you evolution, you have allowed us to choose when, where and even how to reproduce, but you have also allowed us to make the concious decision not to ((which unfortunately only some of the intellegent people seem to choose...thus not passing on their genetic codes...which is regretable. My bf is thinking of donating sperm, just to pass on his DNA...however I hate IVF))

sapping = removing substance in this context
Reproducing creates more lives the remove substances from earth to use for their own benefit, preventing people already alive from using them. Having more than 2 children is adding a burden which will not be removed when you die. If a couple has no children they lessen the burden by two when they die.

Conservation of matter law. Yes, agreed. But some things simply take too long to return to the state we found them in ((oil for example)). Land can only be used by so many people at one point in time.

You have 3 apples, they will feed three people. But if you have 4 people one will go hungry because it will take time for the matter in your apples to return to the form of the apple. Rather basic I know, but it gets the message across.

1% chance is still 1 in 100 people. Last week 300 vasectomies were carried out in Britain in one day, to reduce waiting time. Out of those 300 men, 3 will produce a child. So you see, it is still a chance, even more of a chance than Norplant ((5 year internal time release method of BC 99.93% chance of pregnancy))


So if asking your mother to make excuses. You promise your mother you won't do it ever again.
Second chance? What if you get pregnant a 2nd time. Do you want a 3rd chance or a 4th chance? sweatdrop

You didn't read the example did you? I never mentioned a mother making excuses, I said you go to night school and try again. And you're ignoring the fact that I did not include cheating, you don't have to promise your mother anything.

How many times do people take driving tests before they finally pass? You'll find it takes some people 3, 4, 5 up to 15 tests before they finally pass. That is not making excuses. Everytime they fail they get back to driving school and learn some more, practice some more.



Nope, sex has several functions. You proved this yourself by explaining how it is used.

Couples spend time together, couples talk to each other, couples hug and kiss and do all the mushy things that make you feel gooey inside, couples also have sex, tender gentle morning sex, rough, hard make up/play sex. It is a physiological fact that sex with a person you love creates a tighter bond. It is not the ONLY way, it is one of many that are employed. You leave one out and the relationship may end up failing.

Prostition may be, but not porn. Besides, it's illegal in your country, not all countries.



You do realise that the Morning After Pill is prescription only right? In Britain we can get it over the counter, but 1 pill costs £24 ((that's equivalent to the price of 2 Top 10 movie DVD's)). You think people should take one of these every time they have sex?



See above, not a person.



That's not what it says though. It says that "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." It doesn't say anywhere there that Congress can infer whatever they like into the Constitution. It says enforce, not infer.



Not being American I can't really quote the Constitution. However, it says no killing right? Yet it kills, doesn't matter what the means are. And you ignored Guantanamo. Those people ahve committed no crime, they have had no trial, yet Bush wont let them go.

The Government breaks the Constitution a lot...so why should Jone Blogs be expected to, if you want to go along this Constitution business? *sigh* Americans put far too much emphasis on that bit of paper...



You appear to have inferred is all I'm saying. By claiming that the State should be allowed to take away a woman's reproductive and bodily rights, by ignoring constantly that women can enjoy sex, and have an organ specificly for that purpose, and claiming sex has only one purpose, to fill a woman's uterus with spawn.