Abortion - Is it really the womans right to choose?

[2NaFish]

emotive drivel. can you actually form an argument or are you just relying on 'feelings'?

The only time you came close to entering an adult conversation was where you questioned whether a foetus is a person; but you ran away from actually trying to prove anything. You then went on to highliight your unbridled stupidity by referring to it as a "developing person". Seriously, what the hell is that? By that logic, a woman on the pill is committing murder hundreds of millions of times every time she has sex as she's killing people in development.

Its bad enough that you try and present what you feel as though it was some sort of standard of truth or evidence, but you then present such startling ignorance as to present an argument against contraception.

[Iconic Shawn]

Are you kidding me 2na.

You monster you.

Regardless dude.. I can't prove that a fetus is a "person" aside the brain waves seen at a certain age.

You can't prove that they're not.

What you CAN do, and do it quite well is talk shit, but in a very 'know it all' way.

And dude not every post is going to be some scientific discussion I'm sure you keep your text books nice and polished for.

I was indeed talking about 'feel' in some of that up there and who's to say that can't be part of the equation?

~S~

[2NaFish]

not everything is going to involve science, but the structure needs to be logical and what your saying doesnt add up.

[LostInTheGarden]

I can seriously picture him sitting at his laptop with a dictionary and thesaurus furiously thumbing through the pages to develop his responses  . we all know big words buddy, we're just practical enough to speak in lay terms on a gnr forum. You're not succeeding in making anybody feel stupid so why don't you get off your high horse and mingle ith us peasants for a while

And why is it that feelings can't be considered when making decisions on any matter, especially one such as this, when morality and ethics absolutely has to be called into question It can't possibly be as cut and dry as "Webster defines a fetus as not being a person, so let's kill it". If you really think that way then I think the reason you don't consider your feelings or conscience is because you have none. Every debate we have on here you always rely on someone elses, or society's definition of the issue to refute anyone elses opinion as drivvle. The way I see it everything widely accepted as truth is up for being questioned. Anyone who accepts the textbook (or press-release) definition of everything in the world as an absolute truth needs to come out of their protective box and see that the world and everything in it needs to be viewed and interpreted from one's own perspective. If people didn't think differently we'd all be the same person!

[2NaFish]

And why is it that feelings can't be considered when making decisions on any matter,

i never said they couldnt be considered; you said you can understand the big scary words, yet you struggle with a simple premiss. They can form part of an argument, but beyond that some objective fact is needed.

The rest of your post was cut and past subjective twaddle. If my independent sources don't satisfy you then counter them.

[LostInTheGarden]

Everything ( short of the laws of nature ie gravity, sky is blue ...etc) is subjective. and your independent sources are nothing more than someone else documented feelings. nobody is right about everything. people who pretend they are annoy me. that is all

[2NaFish]

your independent sources are nothing more than someone else documented feelings.

nonsense.

[LostInTheGarden]

nonsense.

okay then show me your source for the fact that a fetus doesnt feel pain.
(if it isn't a fetus being interviewed while being killed it's just an opinion, an educated guess)

[2NaFish]

okay then show me your source for the fact that a fetus doesnt feel pain.
(if it isn't a fetus being interviewed while being killed it's just an opinion, an educated guess)

i dont think i said it doesnt feel pain. Having a nervous system that allows for feeling pain doesnt constitute a person; if it did then we'd need to give animals similar rights to ourselves.

[LostInTheGarden]

right... that makes sense...  true the nervous system does not make it a person... the fact that when a woman is pregnant she gives birth to a person... i mean does it only become a person when it pops out? because i dont think that's the case. granted it is something that is arguable, i just can't find any logic to support it not being a person while in the womb. being such a man of logic yourself I'd think you'd agree here

[2NaFish]

i just can't find any logic to support it not being a person while in the womb. being such a man of logic yourself I'd think you'd agree here

how about the fact that an embryo/zygote isnt a human. if its a person when its in the womb then the morning after pill is murder.

[LostInTheGarden]

well imo the morning after pill is different than tearing the limbs and head from a small yet developed human body. obviously an embryo is still in such an early stage of development that its a different scenario. I dont agree with the current cut-off stages that an abortion can be performed. I'd say if it isn't done immediately after conception (next day, maye a couple days) then I couldn't in good conscience perform such an act. obviously the powers that be dont agree ith me

[2NaFish]

well imo the morning after pill is different than tearing the limbs and head from a small yet developed human body. obviously an embryo is still in such an early stage of development that its a different scenario. I dont agree with the current cut-off stages that an abortion can be performed. I'd say if it isn't done immediately after conception (next day, maye a couple days) then I couldn't in good conscience perform such an act. obviously the powers that be dont agree ith me

you realise the morning after pill works a few days after conception; why would anyone have an abortion on something microscopic? And that its not even a foetus till week 9?

anyway, you say "obviously" its a different scenario. Why is it obvious? Its obvious to you because it feels obvious. Even anti abortionist can't claim it is anything like a human till 6-8 weeks (coincidentally this is when it kinda looks human, which is the emotive, unscientific argument). Unless you can claim any sort of contraception is wrong, then its very odd to say 'abortions' are only permissable for a few days.

[LostInTheGarden]

 (coincidentally this is when it kinda looks human, which is the emotive, unscientific argument).

then what is the non-emotive, scientific reasonoing that supports he/she not being a human? educate me oh great chicken of the sea