I'm not saying that every act of disturbing someone is an act of molestation or that every act of 'molestation / disturbing someone' should be criminal.

I'm only making the point that an abortion is one.

Does that help?

You could have just asked me why it's of any interest to me.

But there's no chance to have a good rant or to make personal attacks in doing that so I understand why you didn't.

Using your views as a standard, it would not be possible to molest a person in a coma.

I don't think that's a fact that you intended to establish.

Is it?

Also, I added the legal definitions at the top of the page that might be of interest to you.

What about the fact that some human beings are born with no functioning brain at all and the fact they have already been recognized and protected by the courts?

I know.

We are trying to get the supreme court to correct those inconsistencies.

Obviously true. An aborted child does not escape -unmolested- from the womb.

That's too wide open and vague.

I have been debating this issue for a long time and I have a lot of archives. What specific view would you like some links to support?

I have been debating this issue for a long time and I have a lot of archives. What specific view would you like some links to support?

That's so much easier than supporting an argument with facts.

What a great and convienient idea.

"I think a brain is required to be considered human."

Is your thought based upon anything that you can provide a link to - that would support it as fact?

I'm trying to establish whether or not you know that you are putting the onus on the child to overcome YOUR arbitrarily drawn conditions and requirements before you will admit (even to yourself) that they are alive despite the fact that they are already living and have been living for some number of weeks.

In other words, it's not a child until they can breech your ability to deny them.

Right?

I'm trying to establish whether or not you know that you are putting the onus on the child to overcome YOUR arbitrarily drawn conditions and requirements before you will admit (even to yourself) that they have a right to the life they are already living and have been living for some number of weeks.

"I think part o f the problem is viewing the whole event from conception to birth as one phase is the problem. I wouldn't consider a tumor to be human and it is really similar to the start of human creation of creation with the fact that it's a lump of cells. But at a later stage in pregnancy, when a brain is formed and such, I would never say it's the same. It's all in stages, sort of like from egg and sperm to human, except more complex."

Would it be fair for me to sum up that view like this? "A human being is not a human being (child) unless or until it lives past a certain point and develops past a certain point and can't be denied anymore. Then and only then is it a human being (child)"

Please.

Nevermind.

I just realized that your comment could describe my views as well.

We don't need to argue.

But I would like for you to imagine me saying what you said.

Oh come on...

What would you think if I was the first to say that to you?

I don't think they hate me. They can't hate something or someone they don't know. My gut says they want me gone because they are tired of the issue. Tired of the same arguments and claims being presented all the time and sick of having their denial of children's rights thown in their faces all the time.

Beeeecause I disagree with him?

No....

Of course they don't.

I added a question mark.

What I am hearing is that as long as they don't know any different and as long as it's better for the rest of us, it's okay to deny them their rights.

For me that's counter intuitive to the idea that a child's rights should begin whe their life does.

Ummmm. You aren't responding to the comment he was banned for.

Dude, I've been at this for a long time. Probably since you were in diapers (1989). I have learned a few things about trolls and how to deal with them. How to spot them and even how to use them against their will. If you look around, there are plenty here who don't agree with me (Ismalia, Elvira, Yourself?, and several others)... I'll debate anyone who stays true to the facts and as some have seen, I won't hesitate to acknowledge a point when one is made.

You won't believe this, but I wish I could go back to being "prochoice" on abortion. I wish that I didn't have to go to bed at night and wake up the next day wondering what more I can do to expose the injustices of abortion.

Maybe that's TMI... but 'it is what it is.'

Know more about what? I used to be pro-choice myself. If I could justify the denials? I would be still.

What is it that you would like for me to be more open too?

And it might help you to know that I used to be 'pro-whatever a woman wants to do and it aint a child' myself.

Children don't have the same consitutional right to be loved that they have to their life and to the protections of our laws.

I agree that is a shame, however I can't imagine how you could ever mandate 'love'.

I can see how we can (and should) make it a crime to kill children unjustly.

I think it's because of my name first. That get's their defenses and prejudices up right away. Then it's my intolerance for any kind of denials or disruptions and finally it's the idea that I won't let go, go away or back down.

Nope. Not gonna work.

If it means that much to you, Ill try to unban him. But (ask Andy) that features has not been working right. Let's see if he's fixed it.

That's a fair question, I suppose. I do love children (especially babies) but I don't care about 'human's' so much as I care about human rights. I would prefer a lot of humans were never created in the first place.

But. Once created, I do care about their rights and I can't pretend that I don't.

Okay... as an experiment, I promise. My next debate will have no bans at alland it will be no less controversial than this one.

Okaaaaaay

And anyone who thinks that i am being abusive or disrupting their debates can ban me for it. They have the same perrogitive that I have.

Do I have to?

LOL...

You are one cheap date!

Definitions?

We have to take them all into consideration and resist the temptation to cherry pick them. Don't we?

"In this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development , who is carried in the womb.'."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laci_and_Conner's_Law

Do you honestly / seriously believe he wants to discuss the issue and consider anything that might prove against his claims that a human in the fetal stage is not* a human being?

When you respond to a post, there is a little question mark above the box that you type in.

Hover your cursor over that question mark and it will explain how to bold text and how to put it into italics

You're welcome.

So, tell me... Do you think the others actually know better and just lack your confidence? Or do you think they really don't know that a human being in the fetal stage of their life is not a human being?

Your fingernails are not organisms.

In fact, they aren't even alive.

Your fingernails are primarily made up of dead cells.

That's right. We may not agree on much else but it is what it is.

A human being. (organism)

That is to your credit. I don't care what else we might disagree about.

This sets you apart from a lot of the others on your side of the issue.

When abortion is being debate,... do you take the pro side of the argument or do you take the con or anti side of the argument?

That's a topic for another debate and for some other time.

If a person is a proponent for the right to keep and bear arms? We call them pro-Gun

If a person is a proponent for gay marriage? They call themselves pro gay marriage

If a person wants recreational drugs legalized... They are pro drug.

Proponents of Abortion are not exempt from this.

That is Priceless!

=)

Same question I had for slug.

Do you have a biological reference that says a human being in that stage of their life has to have those attributes to be recognized as a human being?

"A human being in the fetal stage of their life is way beyond that.

why so?

...it cannot breathe, drink, eat, move, think, learn..."

do you have a biological reference that says those traits are required for a being to be recognized as human?

yeah... derp.