"All right, my turn to play devil's advocate."

No. No one had a "turn" before. And I'm not indulging you in this way, bo_sox48.

I'm out of this.

@wjessop ... If you have better things to do, be my guest. Nobody's keeping you here. If you're here, though, indulge me. If you wanna sleep, go for it.

If you don't like my word choice, I'll rephrase - you clarified your stance. It wasn't particularly clear in the post I responded to before.

@Tr ... what do you mean?

I mean the ones without paperwork didn't want to go through the networks of bureaucracy.

@bo_sox - Could you expand on your claim that a fetus is not human? Genetically it is human. When does it become human to you?

A fetus is a fetus and a child is a child. There's a reason they are two different terms. Take a biology class. You can throw around the "when does the fetus learn to feel pain" and "when does the heart stop beating," but a fetus is still a fetus and not a child.

@Prado ... so that is the "citizenship takes too long and the visas are slow to arrive" group?

@Yaleunc and Bo

It being human is not the debate. The debate lies in when it becomes it's own being.

For instance, if I were to chop my finger off, am I commiting murder? the finger is definitely human tissue and without the nourishment of the rest of my body, it will die. Or course this is ludicrous to say I am murdering life because it's a part of me.

but you see, the same parallels can be drawn to fetuses. They are a part of the mother, mere conglomerations of cells that rely on the rest of the unit to survive. If you don't believe me, babies born too early die from complications, look it up.

Until the fetuses are able to sustain themselves, they are not yet an individual being, but just extra flesh on the mother.

This is the difference between a fetus and an infant.

Whoops, I didn't read correctly, I'm actually on bo's side

1) Bo originally was claiming that a fetus is not human, not that a fetus is not a "child" which is a completely different argument
2) this was raised in the context of Chaqa's point that many/most opposed to abortion believe that it is wrong to kill humans
3) I've had plenty of biology classes. I haven't had the one that says your DNA changes when you are extracted from your mother's womb
4)

Damn, accidentally hit post and wasn't done.
4) as to yoyo's points, most fetuses become viable/able to sustain life between 22 and 26 weeks (some have even survived from being delivered earlier than that). Something else I learned in biology class. This is why a majority of the people in the developed world are opposed to third trimester abortions when polled.
5) fetuses are not just "clumps of cells". This I also learned in biology class. Maybe you guys need to take better biology classes. To get to the stage where it is classified as a fetus the organism has to have already completed the embryo stage.
6) I used to be a lot more pro-choice in my youth than I am today. Seeing ultrasounds of my kids in the second trimester really made me rethink my position a lot. Still in favor of allowing it for life of the mother exceptions at any time, but definitely opposed to any abortions during third trimester other than those.

"3) I've had plenty of biology classes. I haven't had the one that says your DNA changes when you are extracted from your mother's womb"

DNA does not define unique humans.

Have you heard of identical twins? Do you think it is ok to kill one hecause the second one had the same DNA?

Have you heard of Chimeras? (If not google it, humans born with sibling DNA in abou half of their cells... There is one example of a woman having her children taken away from her because her DNA didn't match, they claim she was their aunt... Not realising she had different DNA in her Ovaries than in her mouth... )

Also about a trillion bacterial cells live on/or in you, and have no human DNA. But they are part of you, if you destroy them you can get pretty sick, they affect your diet and probably your behaviour. We live in symbiosis with them.

Very similar to the symbiosis of living with a fetus/embryo attached to you and feeding on your blood - except that is a parasitic relationship.

When we have a cancerous growth, it has human DNA, derived from the host body, but sligthly mutated - so identifably different. And it is alive, human, alive, but not going to grow into a person. Despite definitely having human DNA, and leeching off the life of the host (closest i can get to a comparable situation, unlike cutting a finger off, the finger actually benefits the rest of the body)

@4,5 and 6.

Your position seems to be much more emotionally based than rationally, seeing your kids as fetuses has changed your mind. Well fine, don't abort them.

Besides, most women will not want late term abortions; and most abortions are early. Something like 98% (warning pulling this number out of nowhere) happen before week 20. Never mind the fact that 'viable' fetuses often suffer hugely when delivered around week 23; some die, others have permanent disability.

At that point it becomes a tough call.

But i live in Ireland, and an Indian woman died from sepsis after being refused an abortion last year. Even though abortions are only legal when the woman's life is at risk - there is no legislation protecting doctors or issuing guidelines for when they shouldn't perform an abortion - so the doctors refused to help.

I rather enjoy watching all you spoiled rotten, soft-living, coddled ungrateful social dependents pontificate on the evils of capitalism, while you sit on your phones, your computers, your tablets.... spending HOURS playing an inconsequential game, and posting on your political views on THIS forum, as if it has any effect on the political discoudee, other than allow you to watch yourself type... and often doing so while at WORK -- and yet, you hate Capitalism? Capitalism is the system that create your little gizmos tht you play this game with that you couldn't build for yourself in a million years. The 50 inch TV that hangs on your wall. The car that you drive. It built the house or apartment complex that you live in. If you do own your home, it created the banking system that allows you finance a mortgage on credit. The things that you have... it all comes because someone makes a profit making it, and selling it to you. And they obviously sell it for the right price, Because you buy it. The only one taking your money from you against your will ... is government. And maybe you don't mind...but they definitely don't give a damn if you mind or not. You think you're so noble, calling for so ial justice, for economic justice... just as long as you get to pursue your high-minded goals with some one else's money. Because, you know... THEY don't deserve it. You live in a house you couldn't build for yourelf. You drive a car you couldn't build for yourself. You eat food that you'd starve if you had to grow it yourelf. You sit here spending hours upon hours a day on electronic devices that you couldn't manufacturer for yourself. And the people who have created this world that allows you your coddled life, that allowed you to transcend subsistence farming, that created the office owes you go to "work" at and sit in for 8 to 10 hours a day, never "working" a day in your life, never breaking a sweat..... THOSE people are evil. Why? Because they have money. And they have money Beaune they created things for you that you couldn't make for yourself, and you BOUGHT it? And now you hate them? So give it all back. But of course, you wont. Because you're all ingrates. Ingrates and thieves. And you all love migrants and think they are so entitled to the benefits our society created for itself.... but you don't put them up in your home, do you? Don't feed them with your food, do you? No.... your noble beliefs should be somebody ELSE'S economic been to pay for. Because you don't have the economic resources to pay for your high-minded beliefs, and that lack of resources makes you somehow MORE noble then the people who do have the resources. Because they don't deserve it. After all.... all they did was create the world you live in, and let you buy their products from them. Yeah, you're so much better than them. Can't feed yourself. Can't house yourelf. Without the society we've crsated, and it's infastructure, you'd scrabble in the dirt until you died. And you hate and resent the people that keep that very fate from happening to you. Youre so goddam noble.

Democracy - freedom of speech, and the importance of discourse to the functioning of the state. All the things Atheos make me question whenever they post. ( Muting now )

Define social dependents. My family is middle class.

Decrying the practices of large corporations isn't a hate of capitalism.

And are you an anarchist, by chance?

Orathaic, I don't see your point about identical twins. They are BOTH human, where did I or anyone else make a claim about uniqueness being critical to the matter?

As for 4,5, and 6 being emotional, I disagree. I was being lazy, turning a blind eye to the facts and buying into the "it's just a clump of cells" argument before seeing the ultrasounds forced me to accept the reality that scientifically it is a lot more than that (at least in the sense that ANY humans are more than a clump of cells).

Me? No, i'm a socialist, but i wouldn't object to anarchical communes within my utopic socialist state :) i'm all about the diversity. (And massive taxation of corporate profits...)

Oh, I was talking to Atheos on all 3 posts.

But, wait, ora, an anarchical state?

"Orathaic, I don't see your point about identical twins. They are BOTH human, where did I or anyone else make a claim about uniqueness being critical to the matter?"

Your position was 'because it has different DNA it is a different human'

My question was is that necessary or sufficient.

Twins for the necessary; Chimeras for the sufficient. (Right? I have that the right way around...)

If it is neither necessary nor sufficient, then it is coincidental.

As for your emotional response (or my claim) i don't mean your position is wrong because it is based on emotions. I mean there is no point in me arguing with your emotions because i can't deny how you feel.

But fair enough. Your eyes were opened.

I stand by my position - any woman who doesn't want to bring a child into this world, should be allowed to have an abortion - i believe it is in the potential child's best interest.

@TrPrado "But, wait, ora, an anarchical state?"

No, a socialist utopia, with anarchical communes.

How to win people over in abortion debates 101

Lesson 1. Do not compare a fetus to a parasite or cancerous growth. It doesn't matter how justifiable you believe that to be scientifically, it will not win anyone over. Indeed, quite the reverse.

I blame debating societies for this. People seem to be arguing as if they are being scored on substantive point quality, rather than offering an argument that might actually change someone's mind.

Lesson 2

Don't incorporate your religious ideals, not everyone thinks the same as you, and it destroys your credibility for many people.

Orathaic - Here is my point #3 you are talking about:

3) I've had plenty of biology classes. I haven't had the one that says your DNA changes when you are extracted from your mother's womb

It is a bizarre interpretation to take that to mean that a person's DNA must be unique to warrant protected human status. What is actually means is that your DNA does not change when you leave the womb. I.e. You are the same organism genetically (human) in the womb as out of it.

"Anarchical state" is an oxymoron. And I'm driving,so can't look it up, but I'm pretty sure anarchical isn't a word. Now to answer your questions:

I am NOT an anarchist. I am an elected Republican An economic libertarian. Religion, I am an atheist. I am a divorce lawyer by trade. I am a husband, and a father. I won't go into detail, but I make more than enough money, almost certainly more than I feel I truly deserve. I myself could not do many of the things I described in my previous post. I couldn't make my own car. I could make my own electronic devices. Hell I couldn't even program them. However, I don't resent or begrudge anyone economic success regardless of the degree. mind you, I am referring to people.like you, I do not like many of the practices of corporate America. or, corporate anywhere else in the world. I do not believe that the banking system in America is economically fair. I believe that Wall Street is an economic fiction which exists to manipulate society. However, these structures will never bear the burden of any tax structure, because as has been pointed out, the system is rigged in their favor. until we throw out that system, and replace it with something else entirely, they will always escape the burden of the tax structure. So, the burdens of the state will always fall on the individual.Corporate America and the financial sector of America actively promote and support the vast majority of the liberal agenda, because they know they'll never pay for it. and, unlike the grassroots liberals who blindly support these policies, Corporate America and the banking sector know this simple fact: the larger that government is, the more Corporate America and the banks will be able to control and manipulate our society, because they are the ones with the resources as well as the centuries-long experience of controlling and manipulating our government. And we all know that they are only in it for one thing, which is their economic gain. social justice never makes it on their radar. as such, social justice can never be accomplished Through government. Economic justice can never be achieved through government. The pursuit of a liberal agenda is submission to the ongoing control of our Society by these factions. the issue of illegal immigration is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. The parties used to have completely opposite opinions on immigration from what they have now. the Democratic Party was vehemently opposed to immigration to the United States from Mexico, be it legal or illegal, through the end of the 1970s. shortly thereafter, beginning with the early 1980s, democratic policy began to shift, first in California then nationally. Suddenly Democrats were pro immigration. Why were they opposed before? because the Democratic Party was controlled by Labour. so what changed? Ronald Reagan is what changed. In the election of 1980, Reagan accomplished what no prior Republican candidate had accomplished. he won the majority of the labor vote. being in a panic over the loss of their support amongst labor, the Democrats sought a new voter base. I watched this happen in my own home. My father, a General Motors employees and UAW member in the 1970s was totally opposed two Mexicans and illegal immigrants.he was a regular reader of solidarity, the UAW monthly periodical. by the end of the 1980s, like the rest of the Democratic Party, my father was alL for giving rights to illegal immigrants.because, in the end the Democratic Party doesn't care about economic justice or social justice anymore when does a Republican, or libertarian, or a fascist. All they care about is winning elections, maintaining power, and continuing to have an economic and social stranglehold on whatever voter base is necessary to help them in pursuit of those goals. this is why the Great Society of Lyndon Baines Johnson has been completely unsuccessful in reducing poverty in any way shape or form in America. the Democratic Party learned their lesson with union labor. If you take the poor and make them better off they are less certain to vote Democrat in the future, so let's make damn sure we keep them all poor. I am for smaller government for one simple reason. government is control over individuals. and I don't know who truly wields power at the top, ultimately, but I know they don't give a shit about me. so, to hell with them. and to hell with anyone who supports them. All you Liberal Democrats claiming that you hate and despair over the society we've created for our selves ponder this: Democrats have been in control of Washington DC far more than the Republicans in the past century, plus. besides two brief years during George W Bush, the Democrats are the only party who has ever controled all branches of government at the same time, in the modern era. So why do we have the society that we have? And do you think that continuing to vote for them will get you a different outcome, or the same outcome?

That's a lot of typing for someone who claims to be driving. Sounds dangerous.