That's because your "facts" contradict with the actual facts. You are too stubborn to trust any fact that does not cooperate with your simple one-track line of thinking.

I hear talking, Ryan, but it makes no sense to me. You can say what you like, but my facts are good. Your facts make no sense. You just can't see it because you need to up your medication. Speaking of being stubborn, move on yourself, Dude.

"Thou shalt not murder."


What species is it before that?


If you aren't absolutely sure it isn't murder, then what's your ethical reason for supporting the choice to do it? It seems to me morality dictates that you need to be sure before allowing it. It is an undisputed scientific fact that it is of the human species and is alive and growing. It is also an undisputed scientific fact that abortion kills it. Doesn't that at least make you pause? Watch the movie I posted. What do you think that is??

Using the term embryo or fetus is no different than saying infant, toddler, teenager, adult, or senior citizen. They are all stages in the lifespan of a human being.


As the argument I posted earlier point out, none of us can sustain our lives on our own. We are all dependent to some level on elements outside of ourselves. Since when did dependence on something or someone strip away one's human rights? The rights of the most vulnerable are the ones we should be most concerned to protect.


You haven't even made an argument. All you've done is expressed your personal morality. That's not an argument. Provide us a compelling reason why killing young human beings should be up to personal discretion. Killing people at other stages of life certainly isn't. Why should we accept such an indistinct view of human rights? Whose rights would you propose we deny next?

See, this is why I don't want to give more info. You pick at everything. The medical establishment does not call removing an embryo murder. That in itself is more than a moral argument. They have more info than the Sandman does. I have no proof shown to me that it is a human being at an early stage of gestation, therefore I feel it is not murder.

You can't say, "thou shalt not murder" unless removing an embryo is considered murder. That is a gray area for many. Sandman thinks otherwise, therefore Sandman shalt not abort. However, if any woman in my life wants to, they have my blessing and I will not condemn them for it.

No, I think about everything. There's a difference.


With all due respect, you might come around to understanding our arguments if you addressed your ignorance of scientific facts. What species do you suppose it is if it's not human? This is information the level of elementary school biology. The Law of Biogenesis dictates two things: Life comes from life; it does not come from non-life. And each being reproduces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs. Pigs produce pigs. Zebras produce zebras. And humans produce humans.


Applying this same moral reasoning, if Sandman thinks it's good to shoot abortionists, then to Sandman, he should shoot. And he has the blessing of Bitchen and Bitchen will not condemn him.

The point is, morality is not the kind of thing one makes up for himself. As with anything, one can be mistaken about the moral nature of abortion. As Rush sang, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." By saying we have the liberty to kill young humans, you must have determined that such a thing is not actually evil. Otherwise, you're truning a blind eye to something you think possibly could be murder. That, in itself, would be grievously immoral.


Some do:


Hippocratic Oath -- Classical Version

I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.


Translation from the Greek by Ludwig Edelstein. From The Hippocratic Oath: Text, Translation, and Interpretation, by Ludwig Edelstein. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1943.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oa ... sical.html

The "medical establishment" (if there is such a thing) does not have any official postion on abortion. There are lots of doctors (myself included) who do not support abortion on demand.

there is something that intrigues me in all this...... Bitchen, what is it then if it isn't a human being in the early stage of gestation?

And there's no "mental anquish" for an abortion? It's even worse....


I've seen many women...regret abortion. I've never seen a woman who adopted....wish she had an abortion, instead of adopting.

You my as well say this:



It would match your attitude fairly well.

BTW....I love reading Doc's posts....Doc is a Doc....but also is not religious....so his point of view...is pretty darn impartial.

Being religious.....I obviously believe all are murder.


However...If I was looking at as objectively...as I possibly could (accepting my bias is probably there)


My opinion would be, once the heart is beating....you have a human. End of story.

I wish the "morning after" pill....was WIDELY available....would solve a lot of broken condom mistakes.

Very few OB/GYN's that I've been in contact with....do it. You would know more Doc....but I would guess they are in the extreme minority.

I just remember on my baby #1....the office had 7 doctors that delivered. Only 1 performed abortions....and many women...my wife included...refused any appointments with him.

He died of brain cancer at 45.

Karma is a bitch.

Aww shucks, don't I get the same acclaim? My political standings are 100% secular.

You're not a Doctor....sorry.

Doc is the total package for this discussion. Has a medical background and is an atheist...

Gotchya. Good to have him on our side, then.

Not that you're not valid.......

Don't worry about it. I've debated so much about abortion in the last few months that I don't think I have any more to give. I've heard every side of every view, and it bored me. I tried to jot my thoughts down on abortion in a blog of mine but I got bored of that too. I'm kind of sick of hearing it now.

I think the Video Sandman posted....says All there is to say.

The reason many docs don't perform abortions is that it is a scary thing to have your clinic blown up by right winger radicals who think it is ok to blow up a doctor and their staff in order to save embryos and fetuses. There used to be more who do it. For all of the ones who refuse to see that kind of doctor, there are many others who would see that doctor. To each his own.....this is what makes America great. We have the right to choose. Not all of us are religious and our beliefs are all different. I agree though, the morning after pill should be available and I believe it is in other countries.

There are so many things wrong with the pill. For a start, all the morning after pill does is prevent the fertilised egg from implanting itself in the womb, therefore, "killing" the embryo, which, according to some of the anti-choicers on the board, is murder. [Directed at these people] How is the morning after pill better than an abortion if you consider the fertilised egg to be human from the moment of conception? Secondly, there have been many reports of women losing their libido (!) either during the use of the pill, or for a long time (if not forever) after using it. (I would imagine this is restricted to those using the pill for long periods of time only.)

The other alternative is the oral contraceptive, which inhibits the production of FSH which means the egg cannot mature, and can thus not be fertilised, this it seems would avoid the "problem" of "murder" in the eyes of the anti-choicers on the board, however, neither of these pills work 100% of the time, and the oral contraceptive can also result in kidney and/or liver damage, so it is not a fool-proof "cure."

http://www.medicinenet.com/oral_contraceptives_birth_control_pills/article.htm

Deal with it! Your avatar only tempts us.