That's a very selective reading tendency you've got there, how commendable... Picking and choosing only the portions of the material you want to see...

Allow me to point out the things you chose not to acknowledge:
That research showed otherwise by scientific standards--which is really all that matters in this debate. We as human beings have those things, yes, and according to this research, an incredible portion of our consciousness and "mental awareness"--developing throughout our lives--is based upon fetal development and the consciousness/awareness of the fetus--a living human being.
I beg to differ, the less intelligence one has, the less consciousness and "mental awareness" one has. Think about it. Which species of animals are most self aware? The most intelligent. Which species of animals are least self aware? The least intelligent or most primitive. You must not realize exactly what you're saying, because yes, intelligence has a substantial effect on an individual's "consciousness" and mental awareness. People with mental retardation lack conscious thought and mental awareness--on much lesser a level than you or I. Often times, it's up to those around them to assist them because of it. So does it make them any less human? That's the question I'm asking you. Because intelligence does have to do with mental awareness and consciousness and to deny that is absurd.
What exactly is so difficult about this concept, Bronze Medal? What is this issue about, exactly? It's about human life. Do you understand that, now? Is that clear? Or will I have to repeat myself another twenty times? This issue is about human life, not cellular life... Sperm cells and egg cells make up a part of the human system, they are not human systems in and of themselves. The human system--human life deems those systems to be expendable as it creates many over and over again (literally millions--in the case of sperm cells) and discards them just as quickly. One sperm cell is not vital to the human system for reproduction because of the millions of others that are produced along with that one. One egg is not vital to the human system because of the many eggs that are produced (and discarded if not fertilized). You "don't see how a fetus is not a 'part of' the mother's life?" Really... Intriguing. Well let's see, maybe among other things the fact that it has its own human support system. Or it could be its unique DNA. Or who knows, it could be the fact that it's a unique human being in the beginning stages of life that will grow up into a unique human adult by nature's standards. That's why it's a different human life, a different human being than its mother, because--among other things--the human (not cellular ) reproductive process is fairly straight forward to most of us...
That's one of the most absurd and ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard. Let's see, what's the one crucial difference here? Could it be the other human life--the other living human being--that's involved and might suffer an unjustified death because of the mother's irresponsibility? Yeah, I think that's it. Who is hurt and who's well-being is at stake? The kids. They'll learn their lesson in a number of different ways, but their wounds hurt only them--they affect their lives and their lives only. Hmm, in abortion, it's a tad bit different. In the high majority of cases, it's a selfish woman who doesn't want to take care of the human being she created, so she figures she'll just murder it (unjustified killing) so that she doesn't have to deal with the responsibility of that individual human being's life--which she created in the first place. Let's see here, so review:

Scenario A: Stupid kids, stupid decision, affected only them.

Scenario B: Selfish person, stupid decision, affects an innocent human being, decision of murder.

So how are those comparable, exactly? Oh that's right, they're not.
That's the most absurd thing I've heard thus far in this debate. The fetus is an individual human life, a human being. The sperm and egg are cellular tissue with functions as assigned by human life that are created and replaced constantly.

Wow if there's one thing you know how to do well it's misrepresent the opposing arguments. Congratulations, that was incredibly blatant: Here's what I actually said:
The growth and development of that fetus to live a human life... I didn't say "growing" into a human life, did I? No, I specifically said "to live" a human life. The fetus is living its life, and it shouldn't be killed for selfish reasons, it should be allowed to grow and develop rather than to be murdered for selfish reasons. The follow through is to allow that fetus the natural process, to allow that fetus to grow and develop--to live a human life. Perhaps I should have included the dash, but my words were clearly not as you represented them.
Why shouldn't teenagers repress their urges 100% of the time? They're teenagers for Christ's sake... They're young, but they should at least have some damn common sense. I was a teenager--I managed my "urges" and I'm not fucking ashamed to admit it. No, on the contrary, I'm proud of my constitution--the fact that my human mind, my human will allowed me to realize that such urges are easily overcome and to succumb to them and then fall down such a path of irresponsibility to the point of murdering a human being that was created in the process is nothing but pure sick weakness--among many other completely undesirable human traits. Yes, I managed just fine. We're humans with consciousness and mental awareness, like you said. We can control those urges, it's what separates us from the animal kingdom. If you don't want kids, don't fuck around... What the hell is so difficult about that? And if you screw up and get pregnant/get someone pregnant, do the humane and moral thing by letting nature take its course instead of murdering the human being you created just because of your irresponsibility. How hard is that?
I already explained to you how ridiculous your little "comparisons" are. The man's life is in danger. He was an idiot. It was enough of a lesson for him because he's the only one who will hurt and suffer the direct consequences. In the case of abortion, the human being created will be unjustly killed because of a mother's selfish, individualistic and completely irresponsible mindset. Not just the person who made the decision will be affected, more human lives, more human beings are at stake, and the life affected most is completely innocent of wrongdoing. It's completely different and your "comparisons" are sick.
You still don't understand this? How many more times, Bronze Medal? It's the difference between a cell among millions of the same cell that functions within the human system and another human being. And the difference between a natural stillbirth and an abortion is the one keyword--natural... When we kill the fetus--the human being created by irresponsible parents for selfish reasons, it's nothing short of murder. When nature and the human body stillbirths the fetus, it's well... hmmm... nature...

__________________
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

To repeat:
Sure it works. (Despite your fallacial assertion)
Again, if you cannot reveal any method of forcing a woman (or the gods forbid a teenager) to have a baby against her will then you will never make abortion go away.
Making the claim that the argument doesn't work is just that, a claim. And an invalid one.

Can you or anyone else provide such a method? (Heh...Don't even try. Your arguments so far haven't been well made)
No one will ever provide a Constitutional method that compels a woman to have a child against her will.

You can count on stories like this to be more commonplace if abortion were ever made illegal.

Not to mention the rise in single mothers. And how do you imagine they might support a child they can't afford to have? The runaway father? The government?

So the ability to support a child should be the determining factor of an abortion? Convenience? When we no longer hold Human life precious, that will be our downfall. I do not call it "Forcing" a woman to have a baby. They made the choice to engage in that behavior. if you are not ready to deal with the consequences, then you shouldn't be having sex.

Abortion should not be taught as a form of birth control.Abstinence should be given more importance than it presently is in sex education. Abstinence works every time it is tried.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."- Ronald Reagan

"If the first amendment doesn't work, the second amendment will." - Michael Badnarik

There's no need to repeat. Blatant almost word-for-word repetition is pointless and ignorant in a debate such as this.

As for your "rebuttal," if you're going to be attempting to make subjective and pointed strikes at the nature of my arguments themselves without actual backing, I'd suggest you do it correctly--so as not to leave yourself open for swift counterattack. There is no such thing as a "fallacial" assertion, there is however, such thing as a "fallacious" assertion. Spell-check would come in handy for a moment such as that, as would familiarizing onesself with such terms before impulsively spouting them off in the first place.

Sex is for reproduction. Reproduction is the process by which human beings are created so they can grow and develop--not created so they can be killed. If a woman has sex (which is for reproduction), she is choosing to do something that in all probability will result in pregnancy. If and when that happens, there is another human being involved and it is not up to her to play God over that innocent life by snuffing it out--merely because she doesn't want it (even though she created it).
A word to the wise, telling another debater your uninformed opinion--that their arguments "haven't been well made"--as if it's fact is not only pointless, it's also stupid, condescending, and arrogant. What's worse is when it comes back to haunt you after you've failed to make your attack "arguments" properly. If you continue to make such impulsive anti-civil and arrogant statements based on your opinion toward other members as if they're facts, you won't last long here.

Society can't physically force anyone to do anything. Society can't physically force drug dealers to stop dealing cocaine, society can't physically stop people from speeding in motor vehicles, society can't physically stop vandals from vandalizing others' property. So what does that mean? All those things will always be a problem. So apparently, it would seem you think that because there's no way to force people to stop doing cruel, immoral, irresponsible, and stupid things, that society should just roll over and let these things happen. What a "fallacial" argument. Society doesn't let criminals commit crimes without consequences and society shouldn't just let women murder the human beings they chose to create without consequences There's no way to force them to stop... Really?! Huh... Just like there's no way to physically prevent any crime or immoral action, you mean? The only way society acts is to implement consequences for those actions. Do you understand that now? Is that clear now?

__________________
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

Lets try this again:

Again, if you cannot reveal any method of forcing a woman (or the gods forbid a teenager) to have a baby against her will then you will never make abortion go away.

I'm sorry maybe I don't see it but what was your method of compelling a woman to have a baby?
Don't attempt to put words in my post. Just answer the question.

Did I ever post that abortion should be used as birth control?
No. (Perhaps you are merely making commentary?)

If you are attempting to respond to my posts, how about you stick with the actual verbiage used?

So you decided to ignore the post.
I see. (So much for debate.)

Really? Where was my subjectivity?

Uninformed? Please. You merely obfuscate the argument by attempting to play doctor.

Maybe you simply should have answered the question instead.
*nods* Poor debate when you attempt to equate what is currently legal with what isn't. (A fallacy by the way)
By what stretch of the imagination do you put abortion on the same footing as drug dealing? By what stretch of the law do you consider a girl getting an abortion a criminal?
Immoral huh? I see.

If you aren't going to except Lockes answer, then there is no answer to your question.
When you said "Not to mention the rise in single mothers. And how do you imagine they might support a child they can't afford to have? The runaway father? The government?" That seems to imply that abortion would eliminate those choices. If that is wrong then i apologize, just make yourself more clear next time.

did i hit a nerve? i was only making a comment,chill out.

__________________
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."- Ronald Reagan

"If the first amendment doesn't work, the second amendment will." - Michael Badnarik

Yes, because me replying to everything you said was me ignoring your post... How profound!
Your opinion of others' arguments is subjective--meaning it's individual to you. It is not fact, yet you stated it as if it was. How many more ways can I spell it out for you?
Play doctor? Perhaps you'd like to tell me how this situation calls for such a childish "metaphor." I was pointing out that if you're going to criticize my debate style based on your own opinion, perhaps it would help to get the terms right...
Where the hell have you been? I did.
Pathetic debate when you completely misunderstand and then misinterpret my argument. I never attempted to "equate" what is currently legal with what isn't. I told you that society cannot physically force anyone to do or not do anything, so your point is a moot one. Society cannot physically force someone to stop smoking cigarettes, society cannot force someone to stop drinking, society can encourage them to stop, and society can point out how stupid, immoral and dangerous such activities are, but society cannot force someone to stop. And in the case of abortion, when there is a human being actually being murdered because of a selfish decision, society can take it further and implement consequences for such an irresponsible choice, just like any other immoral action.
Oh so you agree. Good. What exactly were you hoping to prove with that? You either just negated your entire position, or failed to even get an attempted rebuttal across. If that was you conceding the point, sobeit. If that was cynicism, it was completely and utterly pointless because it was a one-liner and you failed to elaborate.

__________________
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

Correction. The baby has detectable human brainwaves 6 weeks after conception, and has a detectable human heartbeat 2 weeks after conception.

And, on a side note, I'm a Latin scholar and it isn't "ect.", it's "etc."
I'm not trying to be a pain, but it's from et cetera.

Did you read the article I posted? Here, allow me to repeat myself, just for you:

Fetal Psychology
Read through all of that, including how the human being develops personality, learning tendencies, alertness, etc. at an early stage in the womb.

Here's another article that confirms the exact same What the Unborn Sense in the Womb

No one individual, including you or I can define an objective and universal level of "self-consciousness" and "awareness" and project it as the necessary level for humanity. That doesn't work, Bronze Medal. Something doesn't have to meet your specific standards to be human. Science is very specific in stating that these are little human beings, and they're being killed for selfish reasons (unjustly). It's nothing short of murder. There is no "justification" for it by simply trying to set your personal standard of what equates "humanity" above the immediate standards that a fetus might have. That's illogical and unreasonable. Science itself disagrees with that.

__________________
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