View Single Post
Old January 28th, 2006, 02:30 PM  
A Pleaser
Join Date: June 29, 2004
Location: somewhere in a galaxy far far away...
Age: 28
Gender: Male

Originally Posted by Dfsg
It's life according to the Courts of Michigan. Although some may not trust our Legal system, the courts ruling is simply that a mother has the right to protect her unborn fetuses. Would you want to strip a mother of that right?

Lets look at this- to be life, something must Grow, move, respond to stimuli, respire, have metabolism, reproduce on their own (which is why viruses aren't life), and excrete. Face it- an 11 year old boy can not reproduce. Should we be able to kill him just because he doesn't fit the biological criterea of life? No! He can potentially reproduce, just as a fetus can potentially do all of the biological mechanisms of life. You silly definition of life is skewed.

So, you abortion lovers must think that mothers CAN NOT IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE protect their fetuses. Also, why don't you allow abortion of 11 year olds. They certainly don't exactly fit the criteria of life. Hypocracy, that's all it is.
well first off i would like to say that the michigan courts are lower courts and the high coutrs, the supreme court, says abbortion is legal and constitutional, so if your arguing against abortion, your arguing against the court system and your arguing against the contitution. if you dont want everyone to have rights, say so.

and the thing that viruses arent living things because they cant reproduce "by themselves" you realize right that only asexual organisms can reprodue "by themselves" and humans are one of the "few" that are not asexual. so under your definition of live, we arnt alive. also viruses DO reproduce, so learn your facts. the reason that viruses are not considered living, and that its being debated is that they arnt active all the time, they are only "alive" when they come in contact with a cell. well a baby is only alive when its in contact with its mother. when you take it away the fetus dies. after a point the baby will live without the mother, but not without ETREME assitance.

if you take away the RIGHT to an abortion, the RIGHT for the mother to choose a better life for her and her potential baby, because it is true that if the mother is sad, depressed, and has a bad life its most likely the baby wont be the greatest person in the world. also if you give an unborn baby more rights then the person it is infecting, because in all respects until it leaves the baby is a virus, then you would have to give viruses rights too. why? to be fair. thats why. if baby in virus form = human, living then virus = living. and since it is wrong to kill living things, then we shouldnt be allowed to interfere with the natural part of things. also if you are going to mention that a virus is just 1 cell, so were you

My Views Are Odd, I am Accutally a Republican
i dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy it
i swear to drunk im not god

pm me if anyone needs any kind of help, i probly know the answer you seek
i got a new email...
its gmail! it is: [email protected]
boognish is offline