Quoted from Box A Rox

~ At the time that most abortions are preformed, the HUMAN LIFE you want to preserve isn't a human being, but a clump of cells, but, like those blood cells, made of human material but not a human being.

Those cells as you wish to call them are protected as a separate human life if harmed without consent. If I cut off your arm a human won't grow from it, if I took your blood cells a human won't grow from it, what's created at conception is special and is its own life, a human life.

Quoted from CICERO

Henry, this is where Box goes haywire and everything with a human cell is now human.  Box will argue that flushing a turd down the toilet would then be considered an abortion.  It really starts getting twisted.

Yup I see where this is going, I only seen it played out here a dozen times

Quoted from Henry

You can't force your morals onto a society and expect good results, all you end up with is a underground economy which usually ends up even more destructive to society. Look back to the prohibition of alcohol, it didn't stop the demand for the product it just made those who were willing to take a risk rich. Those who became rich off prohibition were the ones we didn't want to succeed, that was the mafia. Just like the war on drugs, its a total failure which never stopped the demand it just produced a violent underground economy which killed more people than the drugs themselves.

In a free society comes personal responsibility, what choices you make holds risks and rewards.

The truth of the matter is that this would work in a perfect world where folks are held responsible for their own personal actions. Not the case though. If you become addicted to 'anything'......the government creates a government run program to help the poor victims of....oh let's say gambling or alcohol. Someone gets a dwi and the government courts make you go to a government alcohol program...tax paid of course!

With the government system where everyone looks to the government of 'fix' them........there is clearly no personal responsibility.

Quoted from CICERO

Henry, this is where Box goes haywire and everything with a human cell is now human.  Box will argue that flushing a turd down the toilet would then be considered an abortion.  It really starts getting twisted.

Hey box, would you argue in support of experimentation on the human embryo, if scientists were able to find pregnant mothers willing to inject their embryo's with dangerous virus' to find out what would happen during gestation? After all, that would be like injecting it into a cancerous tumor.  It's only a clump of random human cells.  People volunteer for medical experimentation all the time.  What do you say?

To argue that human beings begin at conception means joining a male sperm and a female egg creates a human being.  Of course that isn't true.  In order for that human tissue to become a human being it has to lodge in the uterus... so if it doesn't and is expelled from a woman... are you going to pay the funeral expenses.  After all, it IS a human being by your definition. Are you going to pay for the burial or funeral parlor expenses for this 2 cell human being???
Most fertilized eggs do NOT lead to a birth.  More than half are expelled.  Should you take those expelled fertilized eggs, and do life support?  Implant them in a woman?  By your definition, they are (2 cell) human beings.
Ridiculous huh?

Quoted from Henry

Those cells as you wish to call them are protected as a separate human life if harmed without consent. If I cut off your arm a human won't grow from it, if I took your blood cells a human won't grow from it, what's created at conception is special and is its own life, a human life.

I agree that a fertilized egg is "human life', but it's a 2 cell human life, not a HUMAN BEING.

Quoted from CICERO

Henry, this is where Box goes haywire and everything with a human cell is now human.  Box will argue that flushing a turd down the toilet would then be considered an abortion.  It really starts getting twisted.

Hey box, would you argue in support of experimentation on the human embryo, if scientists were able to find pregnant mothers willing to inject their embryo's with dangerous virus' to find out what would happen during gestation? After all, that would be like injecting it into a cancerous tumor.  It's only a clump of random human cells.  People volunteer for medical experimentation all the time.  What do you say?

I would oppose experimenting on a woman in the way you suggested.  Chimp embryo have already been experimented on in this way to help prevent birth defects.

Where we differ on this issue is why there is an abortion question in this country.

For most Americans, what Paul suggests IS forcing his OPINION on others.
Your statement:
YOU CAN FORCE YOUR MORALS ON A SOCIETY AND EXPECT GOOD RESULTS.
is exactly the point.
No one forces you to get an abortion, but Ron Paul wants to limit the freedom of those (majority) who do want the right to choose.

Quoted from Box A Rox

I would oppose experimenting on a woman in the way you suggested.  Chimp embryo have already been experimented on in this way to help prevent birth defects.

Why would you oppose experimentation of a clump of random cells inside a woman’s body?  If it's the woman's body, why can she only CHOOSE to abort the random clump of human cells, but cannot CHOOSE to voluntarily submit the clump of human cells to scientific experimentation?  That sounds pretty random.  Why isn't the woman allowed to choose in this instance?  This is about choice Box.  Are you legislating morality Box?

Quoted from CICERO

Why would you oppose experimentation of a clump of random cells inside a woman’s body?  If it's the woman's body, why can she only CHOOSE to abort the random clump of human cells, but cannot CHOOSE to voluntarily submit the clump of human cells to scientific experimentation?  That sounds pretty random.  Why isn't the woman allowed to choose in this instance?  This is about choice Box.  Are you legislating morality Box?

I'm against dangerous testing on healthy humans if there is an alternative... there is an alternative. Chimps.

Quoted from Box A Rox

I'm against dangerous testing on healthy humans if there is an alternative... there is an alternative. Chimps.

Well, I understand your PERSONAL opinion about scientific testing on clumps of human cells inside women...But surely you wouldn't PROHIBIT this type of testing by law if a woman CHOSE to infect a clump of cells with a virus?  A clump of human cells that may or may not become a HUMAN BEING.  

Quoted from CICERO

Why would you oppose experimentation of a clump of random cells inside a woman’s body?

I don't oppose research on the cells.  I oppose 'experimentation' on a healthy woman's body when there are alternatives.  

The cost of repairing the damage to a woman's body in one of "Your Experiments" gone wrong would probably equal the cost of an entire research project.
Although I understand your misogyny from other posts, I would prefer not to harm women if possible.

Quoted from Box A Rox

there is an alternative. Chimps.

You're not suggesting giving chimps more rights than women?  Women could make money by offering their clumps of human cells for scientific experimentation.  People offer themselves for experimentation for money all the time, why would this be different?

Quoted from Box A Rox

I don't oppose research on the cells.  I oppose 'experimentation' on a healthy woman's body when there are alternatives.  

The cost of repairing the damage to a woman's body in one of "Your Experiments" gone wrong would probably equal the cost of an entire research project.
Although I understand your misogyny from other posts, I would prefer not to harm women if possible.

So you oppose it personally, but not make such experimentation ILLEGAL?  You wouldn't' limit a woman's choice by law would you?

I mean...Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol damages the body also, but you wouldn't outlaw it, would you?  

I can see there are a lot of gamblers out there.  ha ha   Got u!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quoted from CICERO

So you oppose it personally, but not make such experimentation ILLEGAL?  You wouldn't' limit a woman's choice by law would you?
I mean...Smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol damages the body also, but you wouldn't outlaw it, would you?  

Cicero, You are the Libertarian promoter on this board, not I.

I would certainly limit the choice of Americans in many areas.  Wouldn't you?  Wouldn't everyone?
Your little play on words is as always, tiresome...
Should we limit the choice of a person to drive 100MPH in a school zone?  Yes.
Should we limit the choice of a business to sell dangerous products? Yes.
Should we limit the free speech of a certain poster who is obsessed with a play on words about "choice"?  Most certainly!

If you have something to actually contribute, then please do so.  Otherwise... I have better things to do.