If you dont own yourself what do you own?

If what is inside your body is not yours then what is?


Then there is the argument from consequence. Illegal abortion promotes black-market abortion, which is objectively riskier and more damaging to society.

Then there is also the slippery slope of allowing governments to control your body. Once they set that precedent that they control your body for your own well being, or the well being of the potential of a future citizen, then were does that stop, and what logical barriers exist to prevent the slip of personal rights?

There is nothing more personal than reproduction, so it is also an issue of privacy.

In fact this topic touches on just about every rights issue ever.

I am very pro-life and see abortion as murder. And I do understand the issue very well as I once had an abortion. And, it's not a religious issue for me. I simply believe that an unborn baby is a human being with the right to life. So, naturally I find selective abortions even more horrific.

If women aren't allowed selective abortion, how else will the population decrease?

More war???

You can be against abortion all you want. As the law stands, though, it's legal. It isn't up to you to decide what women should do.

All this time I thought the topic was about "selective" abortion.

The very conservative would have you believe that liberals get abortions all the time, as a simple form of birth control.

Good thing we have solved the problem here, with
abortion being legal.
What you want to do, legislate what is on a woman's
mind at the time, obviously is as silly as trying
to legislate what a man is allowed to think while
having sex.

It is their business, not ours, their choice, not ours.

Abortion is an issue best addressed by the people directly affected, the mother and father of the fetus, not by a bunch oh holier-than-thou right wing fundmentalists or the government.

Abortions typically aren't taken lightly by the parents. They're emotionally and financially taxing. No one has abortions for fun; but everyone needs to open their eyes to the very real dangers of overpopulation. The Earth is already near carrying capacity. It's evident to anyone with their eyes open. Increasingly limited, more expensive resources, pollution problems, other species nearing extinction due to human encroachment of their habitats.

Wake up, world!

Control of your own body is not a freedom that can be taken away from the individual, it is a right, which is unalienable under the constitution!

Entropy does not destroy energy, it makes it useless.
That is all that needs to be said to refute spider.

Well if entropy doesn't start kicking in soon in this enclosed universe we are in then the dark matter/dark energy is going to push us right out of the enclosed universe.

Spider, You are wrong ... on several levels.

At CERN, one of the primary experiments is to create matter from energy and "see what happens". One of the things that happens is that some particles spontaneously appear and disappear from this universe. We don't know where they go or where they come from. (I am NOT trying to inject the Higgs Boson into this thread!)

A entire science of "virtual particles" has been created to explain various energy transference in the Standard Model. Whether or not the Standard Model is correct in some aspects doesn't matter. Energy and matter are appearing and dissappearing to and from our existence.

Some of the best minds in the business are trying to understand that part of energy transference of our open system universe.

You place great reliance in physical laws that act where we can see them. There is every indication that different laws act in areas that are beyond our ability to measure. The expanding universe is an example.

Uncertainty and Virtual Particles
The conservation of energy seems to be violated by the apparent existence of these very energetic particles for a very short time. However, according to the above principle, if the time of a process is exceedingly short, then the uncertainty in energy can be very large. Thus, due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle, these high-energy force-carrier particles may exist if they are short lived. In a sense, they escape reality's notice.

The bottom line is that energy is conserved. The energy of the initial decaying particle and the final decay products is equal. The virtual particles exist for such a short time that they can never be observed.

The answer was the second law of thermodynamics, which is a descriptive law (as is ALL of science). What does all of thermodynamics describe? Energy transfer within the universe.

THAT is why it is nonsense when discussing the origin of energy, or the universe. Because the context of the law is within the universe, no before, not outside, not dealing in causes of the universe.

Even in a heat death scenario energy still exists, it may not be usable, but it exists. You have made this error before in the exact same conversation, been schooled then and still did not understand.

We are talking about more than our universe when we are talking about what caused our universe.

Explain why this must be true? If you can you will win a Nobel.

Why?

They are misapplying the laws. This entire line of reasoning is a straw man.

Not even. He is not even wrong. He is taking a descriptive law. (please look up what it means for something to be descriptive vs proscriptive) that applies to closed systems, and applying it without regard to context to the whole of existence.

Why would the law detail what kind of system if it did not matter?

It does matter. We have you guys playing at physicist and you have no clue how these laws came into being.

All of science is descriptive, we learn based on what we find, we do not find a creator, we find nothing which requires a creator, and thus make no assumptions about creators in creating models of reality.