Abortion?

Have you been pregnant?

This seems like a somewhat dishonest response, which oft arises in discussions regarding this subject. We can all condemn countless other behaviors, including other homicides, because we can state that a given course of action was not justifiable without having to actually perform the actions ourselves. For instance, if someone breaks into your car and you walk out and shoot them, we can say that in was not justified. Even if we can say that a given course of action is understandable or that we can see what might lead someone to do something (like why a man might rob a bank when he can't get a job and he needs money or a woman might shoot an abusive boyfriend without ever trying to leave first) we can still make the determination that it is not justifiable and should be criminalized.

The quoted text seeks to make an argument for understandability[/ I] and has its place in personal understanding, but what is at issue is justifiability . I have outlined how the very reasoning that leads to criminalization of homicides in general leads to the conclusion that it must include the unborn from the point of conception. Noone has yet refuted that argument or demonstrated a flaw in the reasoning.

If anyone wishes to challenge my point, let them offer their own argument and demonstrate exactly at what Planck second a living human organism suddenly changes in such a fundamental way that the willful cessation of life that is (despite being homicide by definition) somehow non-homicide becomes homicide or that such homicide is somehow justifiable at one moment yet unjustifiable one Planck second later. Noone has yet met this challenge.

"My views on abortion are a bit complex, but I'll have a crack at this."

Your "views" are actually incorrect and irrational. You are indeed a victim-creation of your society.

"Okay, so I pretty much think abortions should be allowed the way they currently are."
What way is that? It varies from place to place.

"However, I do take a pro-life stance toward the fetus being killed. So why do I support it? Because it's a good way to single people out for a bit of eugenics..."

Selective breeding....based on being pro-life????? What does THAT mean? Selecive breeding is a false, illegitimate and insane idea created by humans. The Truth is that most all humans are not fit to breed, because they are mentally defective.

"Basically, I think protection except for planned pregnancies should be mandatory."
Society promotes intercourse, when masturbation is Superior. Society also promotes unprotected sex and so-called "safe-sex". Only masturbation qualifies as safe sex. Society WANTS young girls to get pregnant to both increase the citizen-slave supply and to enslave them to the family unit structure. Condoms simply promote intercouse sex. There will be failures of the device, and also circumstances/urges that may lead to unwanted pregnancies.

"If that fails, go Morning After. If you fail at both, you are irresponsible, an not fit to be a parent."
Is anybody then?

"In this case, both parents should be sterilized after the abortion."
This argument is so insane, I almost can't believe it.
1) You presume there will be an abortion.
2) You invalidly claim that society has the right to mutilite the genitals of its citizens because they accidently had an unwanted pregnancy. This is the same society that is trying to promote same!
3) So many more problems that I cannot be bothered.

"There's a whole list of other crap this plays into, but I'll leave it at that."
I am sure its all crap.

PS Satan, like god, does not exist.

Read it in the context of the post

Was I addressing you? No, I was responding to the common use of the 'question', which you brought up.

Well if you look at the quote you use, you will see my name in it. Generally when you quote someone it is intended for them. If you had not intended it for me you should have removed my name,..simples!!

Do you understand now why i responded?

I see there is a lack of legal consistency on this issue. The unborn do receive legal consideration if a drunk driver runs over a pregnant woman. that is considered double homicide. Why is the death of a fetus in one instance considered homicide but in the other it is not? If it is decided that ending the life of a fetus is homicide this should be true in all cases, and if it is decided that killing a fetus is not homicide this also must hold true in all cases.

you most certainly did, and your statements are irrational. You cannot see this, however, because of what society did to your mind. Your reasoning was incorrect. The correct answer is that the seperate human life form exists at the moment of conception till the point of death.

The only thing human about a fertilized egg is that it has human DNA, but so does my hair, perhaps barbers should be convicted of crimes against humanity for mass murder :rollinglaugh:.

Your hair is not a seperate life-form.

By conception I mean the physical formation in the womb. There is one other thing about the DNA that you dont understand....is that your hair has the same DNA as you do, and the egg does not have the same DNA as the host.

Where does DNA come from?
The sperm contains half the amount of chromosomes that exist in other cells of the body and so does the egg. Because there are only 23 chromosomes in the sperm and the egg, they are known as haploid cells whereas every other cell in the body contains 46 chromosomes and are known as diploid cells.

"When the sperm fertilises the egg half of our chromosomes from our mother, maternal chromosomes, and half from our father, paternal chromosomes, are combined in the one cell (the egg) this is why we share certain traits with either parent. For example, you may have blue eyes like your father, but have your mother's blonde hair."

So, the DNA is a combination of two halves of the sperm and the egg. The resulting DNA is what creates the new life-form.

The DNA proves indentity. Since the identity of the womb-developing human life-form has a different DNA to its host, it has a seperate and unique identity.

Neither is a fertilized egg
Yes it is a seperate life-form. Just because you say so does not make it so. Try presenting some evidence.
Here is some evidence : It has different DNA to it's mother.

Even if this is so, the twins are seperate life forms from the mother. That is the relavent point here. So it does not matter if the twins are seperate from each other or not. (All 3 are, actually).

I suspect your text-book is rather old. Modern science actually has tested monozygotic (identitcal) twins, and thier DNA is not exactly the same.

When a paternal doctor say that the DNA is identical, he means his particular test cannot determine the difference because it is so small in monozygotic twins.

Here is one study :
Identical Twins Don't Have Same DNA - AOL Health

Besides, it is the difference between the mother and the womb-trapped child that is the point. Your answer is ill-informed and makes no sense.

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Are you trying to bore me with your very rudimentary understanding of genealogy?
I'm trying to present actual arguments and evidence to support same.

No, they count as seperate from the mother. It does not matter if she carries 1..2 or 50 children. It does not matter if the children are the same as the other children. The mother is different to the children, proven by DNA.