I can't help but wonder if you have the research or backing to rebut their findings? Or maybe you have the qualifications necessary to determine that yourself? If not, then perhaps you'd like to find the material to rebut their findings. Because theories and hypotheses mean nothing at this point against research that's already been conducted.
Once again, you must not have read the article very carefully. They observed behavioral responses, like you would with any newborn infant... It's no different, you see. You honestly think skin muffles words to the point of being unrecognizable? Human hearing is such that we can hear things through oak doors, and walls, skin would not be a problem. Mothers who choose not to murder the lives they carry with them often talk to them in the womb, sing songs to them, etc. It isn't "muffled" and impossible to hear.
A report from Psychology Today sounds like "ridiculous pro-life propaganda?" Oh but of course it does--because it opposes your arguments!

I didn't see the religious affiliation of the second article until you mentioned that, I found it directly through a Google search, but all criticism aside, it's an interview with a very qualified doctor and the only reason to deny the credibility of his testimony on the absurd grounds that it's shown on a religious website would be because it accurately shows things that completely oppose your position.

There is no question that scientifically, a fetus is a human being. There is no question that your individual standards of "mental consciousness" and "mental awareness" hold no relevancy in this debate. There is no question that killing a human being--no matter how old, young, big or small--no matter how intelligent, unintelligent, "aware" or "unaware" (by one individual's standards ) for completely selfish reasons is nothing more than murder.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Please. Their opinions like yours are just that, opinion. Naturally, you desire to spin it any way you want.

Fetal psychology..Lol
Meaningless play.

Ah yes. This tidbit: Society can't physically force anyone to do anything.
History reduces your "argument" even further.

A study concluded in 1968 determined that over 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed every year in the United States, a portion of which were performed by women acting alone. The study suggested that the number of women dying as a result of self-induced abortions exceeded those resulting from abortions performed by another person. Due to estimated underreporting of illegal procedures, these numbers may not be accurate. A 1979 study noted that many women who required hospitalization following self-induced abortion attempts were admitted under the pretext of having had a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.
---------------------------------------------
Why would anyone imagine that making making it again illegal would solve anything? Especially in light of the fact that the number of abortions in the US have been in a steady decline since 1974.

Really? Then don't mention "drug dealing" or any other illegal activity. A less than trite attempt on your part to link such activity to what is currently legal. (The fallacy is referred to as "guilt by association." And it's usually used more subtly.)
And as the above reveals, making it illegal won't accomplish a damn thing.

Reading comprehension please.
Understanding a point of view doesn't equate to agreement.
You imagine this as a "moral" issue. (Most religious conservatives and radical fundamentalists would agree with you. Just saying)
Do you imagine yourself more moral than those women who have an abortion?

Bear in mind I am with the majority in the US that is still pro-choice. I have yet to see any opinion that is convincing otherwise. Including any read here.

If we appeasts the Anti-Abortionists then the Pro-Abortionists will get angry and take the place of the Anti-Abrotionists. There is no end to this discussion, the pro-life will always fight for anti-abortion and the pro-choice will fight for abortion...
The only way to keep things equal is what we're doing now.

What? No, no, no... You said: "Your arguments so far haven't been well made," which is opinionated and insulting (that's a fair warning to you as to how you phrase such opinionated statements in the future). That means it's your individual opinion, despite that it was phrased as if it was ultimate "fact." That's the subjectivity we're talking about... It seems as if you completely lost track of what that side-argument was even about, but I could be wrong...
Oh, right... Perhaps you'd like to provide us with some actual research to back that statement? No? Until you do, that statement is nothing but your individual opinion--which holds essentially no water against the articles and research that you're criticizing... Unless you can post some qualified source that shows "fetal psychology" to be "meaningless play," then the only thing that's meaningless play is your completely unbacked criticism of something that's supported with research.
Perhaps it isn't clear as to just how illogical that "counter-argument" really is. Allow me to explain for the umpteenth time. This is a completely ridiculous "argument:"

People will do these things no matter whether they're illegal or not, so society should just stop enforcing them

Why is this a completely ridiculous argument? Because it's purely anarchical--it goes against the very grain of society. Yes, people will always do stupid things, people will always do things that are immoral, illogical, and against the fabric of common sense, but does that mean that they shouldn't face consequences for their actions? Hah! On the contrary. Society can't roll over and let criminals and immoral lunatics walk all over it just because "people will do these things no matter what." That same asinine argument could be used for literally any crime or stupid behavior.

There will always be people who murder, no matter whether it's legal or not, so why does society enforce those laws?

There will always be people who steal, no matter whether it's illegal or not--despite that it's illogical and cruel, so society shouldn't keep enforcing it. People have always stolen.

There will always be people who speed in motor vehicles, endangering those around them, no matter whether it's illegal or not, so society shouldn't keep enforcing those mandates.

"History" (according to the flawed "logic" you presented) reduces all the arguments against those things, because people have and always will continue to do them... So does that mean that they should just keep getting away with stupid, illogical and harmful behavior? Hell no. Should mothers be able to murder human beings they created for purely selfish reasons because of their own damn irresponsibility? Hell no.
Perhaps you'd like to familiarize yourself with such terms before so hastily throwing them out there. There was no "guilt by association" fallacy here, none of my arguments even fit that description. In fact, I find it incredibly laughable that you'd even throw out such a term--apparently without having a true understanding of it:

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


did I ever "blame" or "guilt" anything by associating it with other things? No... I was using examples and applying the logic you presented to me to other very versatile situations/scenarios within this society.

You still think I'm trying to actually link abortion with drug dealing and other illegalities? I already told you otherwise and if you continue to misrepresent others' arguments, you're going to find yourself in a not-so pleasant situation. We don't take kindly to straw man arguments here. I'm showing how the flawed logic you presented in this topic (the "people will always do it, so why does society even bother punishing them?" logic) can go along with any scenario of irresponsible, illogical, immoral, and stupid behavior, and that in no way is it a good "defense" of abortion or any of the other situations/scenarios. Just because "people will continue to do something" illogical and irresponsible doesn't mean they shouldn't face the consequences for doing it. That flawed and fallacious "logic" could be used to defend any stupid and irresponsible person from facing the consequences of their actions.

That's the point I was making. Making it illegal--the way it was and should still be--will make people face the consequences for their irresponsible and stupid behavior. I would expect no less for anyone, even myself. People who do stupid, immoral, and irresponsible things in society are punished. Just because "people will always do stupid, immoral and irresponsible things in society" sure as hell doesn't mean society should stop enforcing the consequences for the stupidity, immorality and irresponsibility.

Don't post two-word one-liners and there won't be a problem with interpretation... When you write "I see" in response to a paragraph or so, there are literally hundreds of possible interpretations for that. One-liners are pointless and hard to understand/interpret, so there's no way to call me out for "reading comprehension," when it's practically impossible to interpret such a cryptic one-liner response--therefore lack of specificity and clarification in the response/reply is what the issue really was.
This is a moral issue, there's no "imagining" to it. Society has morals, the idea that society doesn't have a moral code is just incorrect. Society debates and struggles with moral issues every day. I'm ideologically conservative, but I'm not a religious fundamentalist, nor am I a "right wing religious conservative." I simply recognize that it's appalling to kill any human being, no matter how big small, young or old for selfish irresponsible reasons. That's a moral issue, and the moral answer to the issue is a pretty obvious one. Don't murder human beings for selfish reasons--find humane and natural alternatives like adoption.
By society's own standards I retain my moral integrity in this regard--I haven't murdered any human being or any creature for any reason--let alone to make my life "simpler" or for some other dumb selfish reason like that. That's as much of an answer to that stupid question as you're going to get. That question--directed very pointedly and personally--was irrelevant and ridiculous to the actual material of this topic. Don't ever ask me a question like that again.
Ironic that most pro-choice individuals are so opposed to killing on the front of battle, calling conservatives killers and "war-mongers," but when it comes to slaughtering thousands of innocent human beings from within the womb for completely selfish and irresponsible reasons, oh--that's just fine.

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

Let my just quote Dr. Seuss
"A Person is a Person no matter how small."

Bronze Medal I have noticed that you are a vegetarian. So you will not suffer a animal to die but you won't think twice about a baby. Something that is capable of the very intelligence as you or me.

__________________
The nice thing about being right is that you don't have to change your mind.

*shrugs*
In my opinion they haven't been made well at all. (If you don't like it that's too bad.)

I'm with the majority. I don't have to provide anything. In a genuine debate, the onus is on the minority.

Again, attempting to associate "stealing" and "murder" with abortion. That may work for you and and other radical fundamentalists but it doesn't work in debate.
And again, this didn't work before, and it most certainly will not work now.

Your interpretation of what is considered "murder" is different from what most of society considers murder. (FYI: Murder is a legal term and "abortion" doesn't equate murder in the eyes of the law.)

I suggest you tone your rhetoric down. Your posts for the most part are too divisive for genuine debate.
Debate is supposed to be convincing the opposing side in some way.

Convince the majority that a zygote deserves the same Constitutional Rights that a newborn has.

I think it doesn't matter if the fetus has a consciousness and feelings or not. We don't know.
But it is fact that the fetus would become a human being if you let it become such.
I am not an "anti abortionist" but it is good/better if a woman decides for the child, but if she doesn't want to have it you can't force any woman.

Both - to abort or to be forced to get a baby - could be considered as personal injury or even murder, I suppose.

I don't "like" or support abortion but I think it is necessary that there are such laws.

Watch yourself. Your "opinion" is the defining keyword there, you hadn't made that distinction before, and when you stated "your arguments haven't been well made," it's as a fact without you specifying that it's just your opinion. So in that case, if I don't like it it's not "too bad", rather you will face consequences for such rash posts in the future. This is a warning.
Incorrect. It's never about the "majority" or the "minority" in a debate, it's about those who are on the side of change and those who are on the side supporting "staying the course," so to speak. Those representing the side for change must present the prima facie case, which I have done, supporting my arguments with research and actual material sources. Your job as the opposition--if we were following debate standards, would be to rebut my arguments and research with opposing research and support, not just your opinion. Your opinion, albeit interesting , is not relevant to this debate lest it is supported.

That's not what I've been doing and I've outright told you that--my intentions with that argument--at least three times now, yet you persist to blatantly misrepresent my argument. There is no association there. They are separate. The association is with the logic you presented to me (not abortion), but the logic defending it that people are going to do it, so why should society continue to try and stop it?. That "logic" can be used to defend literally any immoral, irresponsible or stupid behavior. There was no association between abortion and "stealing" (although abortion is legal murder, so yes, those are similar) and it's incredibly low-class for you to continue misrepresenting my argument in that way.

Incorrect. Murder is not purely a legal term. This is a moral debate about a moral issue within society--the issue of unjustly killing human beings for selfish reasons. My interpretation of "murder" is the dictionary's interpretation of murder:

Murder - Definitions from Dictionary.com

That is the one true definition of the word murder. The "law" doesn't decide what constitutes murder--only in a legal setting is that necessary. Otherwise it's fairly obvious by clear social standards that to kill a human being for selfish, unjust reasons--inhumanely--is blatant murder.

In your "legal" terms, the only thing that constitutes murder is that it be an "unlawful" killing. That's it. That makes a lot of sense, huh? So the law determines what equates "murder" as a generic and general term? No. Hardly. The law decides what equates murder in a legal setting. "Murder" as a moral--or immoral term, rather--is something in and of itself.

Have you ever witnessed a "genuine" debate? Maybe taken part in a collegiate level debate course? It would seem that the answer to that question would be a very blatant "no." "Genuine" debate is very aggressive. "Genuine" debate is not meant to convince the opposition, it's meant to convince the onlookers and, if there are any--judges--of the debate. Since the only real onlookers who voice their opinions in this debate are by default participating members in this debate, there's really no way to conform with your completely absurd "suggestions," so what I would suggest is that you keep your pointed "suggestions" to yourself and follow them if you will, but do not expect others to do the same--especially when it would seem that your "suggestions" are based not on experience of actual "genuine debate" but of completely outlandish and blatantly incorrect assumptions.
I already presented the research to support that, my friend. This isn't about "convincing" people, it's about supporting arguments with facts. Now as the opposition, you can either rebut the research--according to your so called "genuine debate" standards--with opposing research, or you can continue to blast us with opinionated nonsense. It's entirely up to you...

__________________
Political Diplomacy Game Map
Forum Diplomacy Game Discussion Thread
__________________
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."
-John F. Kennedy

"Education begins the gentleman, but reading, good company and reflection must finish him."
-John Locke

"What worries you, masters you."
-John Locke

what a real cruel way of looking at the begining stages of human development
a zygote is the start of a human being right after fertilization(im not telling you some thing that u already know) how can you kill a human being at its early stage of development. Thats like your boss hiring you as an apprentice and firing you before you advance in knowledge. Tell me what would happen if your mother decided to have an abortion??You would not be here typing you at your early stage of development would have been killed think about that.Now imagine now, as you are now would you wanted to be killed or are you happy your mother gave birth to you? And if your answer is that you are happy that you have life then why be selfish, and be for taking away a life that hasent yet had an opportunitee to experience what you have had time to experience...... LIFE!!!

John McCain believes that making it illegal is the answer.