Abortion

[A-Thousand-Lies]

I'll copy Bullroarer, since I'm an attention whore.

What are your thoughts? Right or wrong?

[mojojojomo]

Why would you open such a can o' worms? This should be as illegal as religious topics really, because all it does is descend into flaming.

Anyway, personally, i believe that first trimester abortion is alright. Perhaps a little on the dodgy side, but still up to the mother. At that point the foetus (i wont call it a baby) is still only a bundle of cells.

[Romanov77]

Better dead than be forced to have a crappy life...

[Holy Knight]

Why would you open such a can o' worms? This should be as illegal as religious topics really, because all it does is descend into flaming.

But why should that necessarily happen? We've had some religious conversations which did a pretty good job of staying flame-free (with some posters being noticeable exceptions), and in general I see no reason why we can't have a civil discussion about this or anything else too.

So then:

I think that it's wrong in almost all cases, because it ends the life of a human child, albeit an unborn one. Unless there's some sufficiently extreme reason for doing so, then, such as saving the mother's life, then it shouldn't be done. I'll probably have more to say on this later.

--HK

[Kingcrazygenius]

Better dead than be forced to have a crappy life...

Logic like that justifies genocide!:)

Anywho, I don't think abortion is ok at all, except in cases where the baby is a threat to the mother and possibly in cases where there is no chance the baby could be properly provided for or something, and even then I'm iffy about it.

Fortunatly I am blessed with great apathy, and as such don't care much about people I don't know, unborn babies included. However if I were to accidently get a girl pregnant I would do everything in my power to make sure it's not aborted. Ish mah baiezh after all.

[RagnaViper]

I'm going to quote one of my favorite comedians of all time:

"Your mama was pro-life!"

That aside, abortion is ******ed. Most of us only hear that it kills the baby and that's it. WRONG!!! The procedure has been known to cause permanent damage to the mother. It kills unborn children (we all know that though, I just threw it in for effect)!

The worst thing you can do with an unwanted child is abortion.
The best thing you can do is adoption.

Seriously, there are a lot of responsible couples out there, willing to take care of a child. This is most common with one or both of the parents being unable to have children.

[Raistlin Majere]

Find it odd that killing a pregent women gets you 2 counts of murder? :y-mm:

[Laff]

i think it's wrong in all cases except where it will probably kill the mother.

Better dead than be forced to have a crappy life...

adoption is the answer to both **** cases and this statement.

keep your legs closed if you don't want to have a baby.

however my FAVORITE thing to use on these idiotic feminists who use women's rights to say they have a "right to choose," what about all of those unborn women who's rights you are violating. right to choose goes down to choosing to spread your legs, sluts.

[Nio the Namless]

I don't think a person should be able to choose weather or not I get to live at any age. As it goes the chances of actually getting your genetic make up are slim but still happen. Of the million of sperms and the many eggs that just don't make it, you just happen to be made.

I don't support it unless in extreem cases stated before. Adoption is out here, so what you mistake comes back. What if I shot you in the head so you couldn't come back to haunt me....(ok a little dramtic but gets my point across) (and I can think of a few people....)

Another thing is Pro-Choice does NOT increase womens right. In fact it tends to statitically(sp) take away the right of the women. Often causing them physical, mental, and other harms. And the fact that people don't WORRY about getting pregnant. (you know the stories, O it would never happen to me, I am so surprised....)


At the very least as soon as a baby is biologically human (genetic make up) it should be considered a human being.

[lordshadowbane]

Abortion is wrong in my opinion.
1. When an "unborn" baby or the bundle of cells is in the mother it has a different DNA stamp than the mother or father. So it is not part of the mother's body.
2. Its the mothers fault she had the baby and so she decides to get out of her troubles by killing the "unborn" baby?
3. The best birth control medicine is not to do it in the first place.

[Dragolas77]

Adoption = :)

Abortion = freaking moron...

Seriously, it's basically murder. He could go on to live a happy sucessful life, and, like in the patch the world thread, abortion nearly kills the mom as well, and costs a whole crapload more

[SuRReAL OrC]

It's not right. Denying a human life in it's earliest stages isn't right. The mother should have the child, and if she can't handle it, put it up for adoption.

[VirtualKish]

Suprisingly, a lot of pro-life for a liberal board. Just to raise a question: what if the child has a defect that will allow it to live, but will make it live a handicapped life. Examples: Down syndrome, blind/deaf, crippled... I'm pretty sure tests are given to a pregnant woman to check for signs of this disabilities. Does anyone know the current policy on these types of abortions?

[SuRReAL OrC]

3. The best birth control medicine is not to do it in the first place.

That's like telling me not to spam. It just ain't gonna happen. :lol:

[Slay]

Abortion is a good thing. Let's face it, people suck. The kid COULD turn out to be the best thing that ever happened to the world, but in all likelihoods, he's going to turn out to be another deadbeat who'll add nothing to the world.

Also, death most definitely isn't the worst thing that can happen. Think about it, would you rather be tortured for ten years by expert torturers, and then released, or would you rather die from a single gunshot. When you look at it economically, with nonexistence being equal and bad thigns being negative and good thigns being positive, even if you live a incredibly happy rest of your life, you'll still never rebound from the ten years you spent tortured. And for those of ou who disagree, you honestly have no conception of the absolutely gruelingly long time a decade is.

It's the same thing here. Would you rather the child spend his whole childhood living under squalid conditions, to grow up a loser hobo, or woudl you rather the child never existed?

Might I also remind you for those who say that adoption is okay, that having a child in medical expenses costs about ten thousand dollars. Esssentially you are paying ten thousand dollars and a whole lot of labor pains (and potentially a lot less money from work because you can't work) to have the world life population go up by one, and you never get a single benefit out of it. Why should you go through that just so someone else(and the morality of the world) benefits?

At the very least as soon as a baby is biologically human (genetic make up) it should be considered a human being.

What defines a human being? What particular part of his makeup? I believe it was either mojo or strathy that said that what makes a human a human is the brain, and that only forms after three months. So essentially what you're killing is an animal, unless you're using some arbitrary definition for humans.

The worst thing you can do with an unwanted child is abortion.

No. The worst thing you can do with an unwanteed child is have it, and let it live out its miserable life because you can't afford to take care of it.

right to choose goes down to choosing to spread your legs, sluts.

That might just be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. The whole point of the CHOICE movement is not so that they can be pigeonholed into making a one-or-the-other choice, it's so that they can choose to have the best of both worlds, sex and no attachments. If they had to choose between two unfavorable outcomes, it wouldn't be a choice. It would be coercion, because you don't want either of them.

What if I shot you in the head so you couldn't come back to haunt me.

If I haunted you out of over $10,000, feel free to shoot away.

And as a final thought, it is entirely hypocritical to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Both kill things, and death = bad, right?
-Slay

[Kingcrazygenius]

Well I do like death sentences...it's the Texan way.:)

[PervertSama]

Well when you think about it abortion is pretty much the same thing as a condom.

If you don't use condom: baby will be born.
If you use condom: baby won't be born.

If you don't have abortion: baby will be born.
If you have abortion: baby won't be born.

But if you think about it that way, then not having sex would be a crime since that means the women would be killing a baby every month, and the men would be killing some million every day! :O

Pretty much you can't set a certain time at which a baby could be classified as such, and because of this I believe the choice should be fully left up to the woman. if she feels that she needs to kill the unborn child, then let her.

But personally I wouldn't give a damn, if a woman wants to do it then go ahead. If I myself was a woman, I wouldn't have abortion though, even if I was *****. If my future girlfriend/wife considered an abortion, I would say against it, but I wouldn't do anything to show that it isn't her choice.

[Nio the Namless]

What defines a human being? What particular part of his makeup? I believe it was either mojo or strathy that said that what makes a human a human is the brain, and that only forms after three months. So essentially what you're killing is an animal, unless you're using some arbitrary definition for humans.

When the make up of the organisum is human. I am not refering to no f*cking brain. I am refering to when it moves form a blob of dividing cells to a human being. I am not talking ethics. I am talking science, for the definition. Which can be proven. When the creature is no longer just a dividing egg or a mass of cells but an actually a human. (this refers to DNA)

If I haunted you out of over $10,000, feel free to shoot away.
money is money. Get over it. Besides both cost money either way your f*cked


That might just be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. The whole point of the CHOICE movement is not so that they can be pigeonholed into making a one-or-the-other choice, it's so that they can choose to have the best of both worlds, sex and no attachments. If they had to choose between two unfavorable outcomes, it wouldn't be a choice. It would be coercion, because you don't want either of them.
Ever thing has a conciequence(sp). For every action there is a reaction. Learn to live with it.


I think my mind is fogging up right now... must ... eat

[Kingcrazygenius]

When the creature is no longer just a dividing egg or a mass of cells but an actually a human. (this refers to DNA)

By that logic a zygote is a human being, because the initial zygote has the full DNA of the future human. The DNA is there before the cells begin to divide.

[Slay]

When the make up of the organisum is human. I am not refering to no f*cking brain. I am refering to when it moves form a blob of dividing cells to a human being. I am not talking ethics. I am talking science, for the definition. Which can be proven. When the creature is no longer just a dividing egg or a mass of cells but an actually a human. (this refers to DNA)

You magnificently failed to answer my question. Let me phrase it like this: If you were to design an animal from scratch, what characteristics would you use to make it a human? That is what happens in an embryo, it is a blank slate with some DNA at the beginning, and then it grows into a whatever. Without defining what a human is first you cannot say that killing a human is bad when its yet to be unformed.

money is money. Get over it. Besides both cost money either way your f*cked

Not 'either way you're f*cked. One costs 10,000, the other costs 487.
Sources:
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/childbirth/2413.html (and this for just the childbirth alone. I didn't look up the stats on how much the additional costs of pregnancy are).

In addition, I am deeply offended by your provinciality when you say that 'money is money' and I should 'get over it'. For most single mothers, ten thousand is a HUGE ton of money. It's essentially equal to a car. Would you think that you would have a better life with a car, or with a baby that you never see because you gave it away for adoption?

Ever thing has a conciequence(sp). For every action there is a reaction. Learn to live with it.

That's no reason to assign gratuitous consequences to a situation that can end up to be a win-win situation.

-Slay

[Agent Chameleon]

Suprisingly, a lot of pro-life for a liberal board. Just to raise a question: what if the child has a defect that will allow it to live, but will make it live a handicapped life. Examples: Down syndrome, blind/deaf, crippled... I'm pretty sure tests are given to a pregnant woman to check for signs of this disabilities. Does anyone know the current policy on these types of abortions?

I don't think they should be aborted either. Should my brother have been aborted since he is autistic? o_O


Let's face it, people suck.


Well ty. :y-flowers


Also, death most definitely isn't the worst thing that can happen. Think about it, would you rather be tortured for ten years by expert torturers, and then released, or would you rather die from a single gunshot. When you look at it economically, with nonexistence being equal and bad thigns being negative and good thigns being positive, even if you live a incredibly happy rest of your life, you'll still never rebound from the ten years you spent tortured. And for those of ou who disagree, you honestly have no conception of the absolutely gruelingly long time a decade is.


I'd let the unborn child decide which is worse: to be "saved" from this hell or to experience life and make the best of it. While I haven't been tortured for a decade, i lived in a ****ty environment for 5 years or so, and yet I don't regret those experiences. Sen. John McCain was tortured for quite some time in Vietnam, yet that didn't stop him from moving on, nor did that stop many of the Holocaust survivors from going on with the rest of their lives.


It's the same thing here. Would you rather the child spend his whole childhood living under squalid conditions, to grow up a loser hobo, or woudl you rather the child never existed?


You don't know that the child could not make the best out of squalid conditions. I have friend who grew up in the Amazon jungle, one of the most poor regions in the world. Yet he made the best of it and eventually he and his family moved to the U.S. and after working for a few years he managed to study in Columbia University. While certainly stories like this don't happen to everyone, you never know, and its unfair to deny a human being that chance.


Might I also remind you for those who say that adoption is okay, that having a child in medical expenses costs about ten thousand dollars. Esssentially you are paying ten thousand dollars and a whole lot of labor pains (and potentially a lot less money from work because you can't work) to have the world life population go up by one, and you never get a single benefit out of it. Why should you go through that just so someone else(and the morality of the world) benefits?


Because there are people who are willing to offer a needy child a life that they (the adapting person) took for granted. Its called compassion, and I'm sorry Slay that you see human beings as mere economic units.



What defines a human being? What particular part of his makeup? I believe it was either mojo or strathy that said that what makes a human a human is the brain, and that only forms after three months. So essentially what you're killing is an animal, unless you're using some arbitrary definition for humans.


Is a an unborn child a frog, or has the chance of turning into a frog while in development? While they may not have all of their organs development, its still a human being that is growing, that could be you, me, or your best friend, or anybody.


That might just be one of the stupidest things I've heard in a while. The whole point of the CHOICE movement is not so that they can be pigeonholed into making a one-or-the-other choice, it's so that they can choose to have the best of both worlds, sex and no attachments. If they had to choose between two unfavorable outcomes, it wouldn't be a choice. It would be coercion, because you don't want either of them.


And our point is that if you are to have unprotected sex, you have to accept the consequences. Why should the human in development have to die because his parents made a stupid decision?


And as a final thought, it is entirely hypocritical to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Both kill things, and death = bad, right?
-Slay


I agree with you here. I would love to see the death penalty abolished. Too bad many pro-lifers can't share my sentiments. :(

[Nio the Namless]

You magnificently failed to answer my question. Let me phrase it like this: If you were to design an animal from scratch, what characteristics would you use to make it a human? That is what happens in an embryo, it is a blank slate with some DNA at the beginning, and then it grows into a whatever. Without defining what a human is first you cannot say that killing a human is bad when its yet to be unformed.



Not 'either way you're f*cked. One costs 10,000, the other costs 487.
Sources:
http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/cost.html
http://www.babycenter.com/expert/pregnancy/childbirth/2413.html (and this for just the childbirth alone. I didn't look up the stats on how much the additional costs of pregnancy are).

In addition, I am deeply offended by your provinciality when you say that 'money is money' and I should 'get over it'. For most single mothers, ten thousand is a HUGE ton of money. It's essentially equal to a car. Would you think that you would have a better life with a car, or with a baby that you never see because you gave it away for adoption?



That's no reason to assign gratuitous consequences to a situation that can end up to be a win-win situation.

-Slay
1. I am not going through the effort to explain the biological definition of what it means to be human. But from the view of scienic there is a stage when a developing organisum is either human or not. (I believe it is in the genome of the developing organisum)

2. You got me on price

3. Life is worth a bit more then that, but thats my opinion and I can not argue an opinion

4. I think it is a win-lose situation. But then again thats my opinion

5. People can over alot more then you give them credit for

[Slay]

I'd let the unborn child decide which is worse: to be "saved" from this hell or to experience life and make the best of it. While I haven't been tortured for a decade, i lived in a ****ty environment for 5 years or so, and yet I don't regret those experiences. Sen. John McCain was tortured for quite some time in Vietnam, yet that didn't stop him from moving on, nor did that stop many of the Holocaust survivors from going on with the rest of their lives.

I can tell you right now that there is no way in hell that this could be aunbiased poll. But when it comes to living on the streets, with barely any job or no job at all, and a child to care for, the mother has it extremely rough, and the child will have it rough too. My ex-girlfriend was one of three triplets that was raised up by a single mother that was handicapped up the wazoo. the only thing that kept them through the hard times to eventually moving to a better place like where I lived was that she and her sisters were absolutely precocious - some of the brightest people I met. But they barely survived the harsh life, and then they had an 'out' to take care of. they're the 99.9th percentile, which leads me to believe that 99/100 people will become despondent and become like drug dealers or something.

You don't know that the child could not make the best out of squalid conditions. I have friend who grew up in the Amazon jungle, one of the most poor regions in the world. Yet he made the best of it and eventually he and his family moved to the U.S. and after working for a few years he managed to study in Columbia University. While certainly stories like this don't happen to everyone, you never know, and its unfair to deny a human being that chance.

What I said above. You DO never know, but it should be up to the mother to decide whether or not to roll the dice and get either a down-to-earth survivor who does something really good or just another hobo.

Because there are people who are willing to offer a needy child a life that they (the adapting person) took for granted. Its called compassion, and I'm sorry Slay that you see human beings as mere economic units.

Well then these people can go ahead and deliver the baby. The other ones shouldn't be forced to, they should have the CHOICE of abortion.

Is a an unborn child a frog, or has the chance of turning into a frog while in development? While they may not have all of their organs development, its still a human being that is growing, that could be you, me, or your best friend, or anybody.

Well, for starters, if you took high school bio, you'd know that in the early stages of a fetus, all animals look nearly identical and cannot be readily identified. Which is precisely my point, that until it takes on human characteristics, namely a large brain that enables it to surpass other animals, it is still just an animal.


And our point is that if you are to have unprotected sex, you have to accept the consequences. Why should the human in development have to die because his parents made a stupid decision?

What consequences? There are no consequences, abortion is safe and cheap, and it is a quick out in the system. Here is a way in which people can get a two for one, they can still have sex and be wild and yet never have to take on unnecessary responsibility for their actions. You seem to be just tacking on obsolete consequences to a system that bypasses them all.

I agree with you here. I would love to see the death penalty abolished. Too bad many pro-lifers can't share my sentiments. :(

High five!
-Slay

[lordshadowbane]

First, so that means it encourages sex b4 marriage. Which means it will make their be more ppl with AIDs and STD.

[Slay]

First, so that means it encourages sex b4 marriage. Which means it will make their be more ppl with AIDs and STD.

Not if you educate them properly.
-Slay

[Nio the Namless]

What consequences? There are no consequences, abortion is safe and cheap, and it is a quick out in the system. Here is a way in which people can get a two for one, they can still have sex and be wild and yet never have to take on unnecessary responsibility for their actions. You seem to be just tacking on obsolete consequences to a system that bypasses them all.

This dumbfounds me to no end. I can see when you are talking about someone making a mistake and not being able to handle that mistake but sheer disregard.....


n/m

[Agent Chameleon]

I can tell you right now that there is no way in hell that this could be aunbiased poll. But when it comes to living on the streets, with barely any job or no job at all, and a child to care for, the mother has it extremely rough, and the child will have it rough too. My ex-girlfriend was one of three triplets that was raised up by a single mother that was handicapped up the wazoo. the only thing that kept them through the hard times to eventually moving to a better place like where I lived was that she and her sisters were absolutely precocious - some of the brightest people I met. But they barely survived the harsh life, and then they had an 'out' to take care of. they're the 99.9th percentile, which leads me to believe that 99/100 people will become despondent and become like drug dealers or something.


Whats your point here? Do you know that for a fact. Should a mother abort her child based on assuming that there is a 99% chance that the child will turn into a drug dealer? How about instead of executing innocent children who haven't commited anything wrong, why not work to either a.) improve social conditions locally or do something else proactive?


What I said above. You DO never know, but it should be up to the mother to decide whether or not to roll the dice and get either a down-to-earth survivor who does something really good or just another hobo.


And should I take a shot at the kid who has a 50% chance of becoming either the next hitler or the next gandhi? Playing dice has no place when it comes to dealing with innocent lives.


Well then these people can go ahead and deliver the baby. The other ones shouldn't be forced to, they should have the CHOICE of abortion.


Whoa, we are talking about adaption, aren't we? Whats your point here?


Well, for starters, if you took high school bio, you'd know that in the early stages of a fetus, all animals look nearly identical and cannot be readily identified. Which is precisely my point, that until it takes on human characteristics, namely a large brain that enables it to surpass other animals, it is still just an animal.


Yes slay, i am well aware of that "fact", yet it doesn't prove anything. A "fetus" is still going to turn into a human and not some animal.


What consequences? There are no consequences, abortion is safe and cheap, and it is a quick out in the system. Here is a way in which people can get a two for one, they can still have sex and be wild and yet never have to take on unnecessary responsibility for their actions. You seem to be just tacking on obsolete consequences to a system that bypasses them all.


Every action has a consequence. Its a fact of life. Even mudane stuff like going to the movies or playing UT has consequences. And sex, while fun and all, is not without consequences. While it can have positive effects, it can have negative ones too. Like herpes or gonorrea or unexpected pregnancies. Two consenting adults have to acknowledge that when having unprotected sex.

And abortion too has consequences. While its not necessarily the same for every woman go through it, many women later on in their lives become overwhelming depressed based on their decision to kill a child they could have had.

Peace brotha.

[undsputed1]

"And as a final thought, it is entirely hypocritical to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Both kill things, and death = bad, right?"
-Slay

Ahh....the perfect place to raise something I wanted to do before. Thanks Slay for setting that one up. Europeans criticize Turkey and the USA for having the death penalty. It's a reason, according to them, to keep Turkey out of the EU (it is one reason not the only one given). Get this Slay.....it is entirely hypocritical to be against death penalty and for abortion. And it is even more arrogant to criticize othes for being hypocritical in the process.

[Slay]

Oh my goodness, I have two of Nio's posts that I skipped over that I still have yet to respond to. Well, this will be my last post of the night, it seems on this topic.

Well, here goes:

1. I am not going through the effort to explain the biological definition of what it means to be human. But from the view of scienic there is a stage when a developing organisum is either human or not. (I believe it is in the genome of the developing organisum)

But that is exactly what I'm asking you to do. I'm asking you to pigeonhole(great word) precisely what makes a human being a human being.

3. Life is worth a bit more then that, but thats my opinion and I can not argue an opinion

4. I think it is a win-lose situation. But then again thats my opinion

5. People can over alot more then you give them credit for

Go for it. Argue those opinions. I certainly argue my opinions and don't claim that they are fact. I'm interested in a good argument.

On the fifth point of it, I would say that I think that the statistics are artificially inflated on terms of success stories vs. failure stories on the streets, being that the success stories are heard and the failure stories are generally not. In the end, though, it's always two people trying to live off of a pay which one person was barely living off of in the first place, which spells quite a bit of trouble.

This dumbfounds me to no end. I can see when you are talking about someone making a mistake and not being able to handle that mistake but sheer disregard.....

I'm not arguing FOR sheer disregard, I'm arguing for a person's RIGHT TO have sheer disregard. Personally, I believe in educating people on the great disadvantages of promiscuity and uncaringness, most grievously AIDS and HIV and other STDs. But then again, people should have the freedom to do whatever they want in terms of their life.

Okay, back to Chameleon.

Whats your point here? Do you know that for a fact. Should a mother abort her child based on assuming that there is a 99% chance that the child will turn into a drug dealer? How about instead of executing innocent children who haven't commited anything wrong, why not work to either a.) improve social conditions locally or do something else proactive?

Personally, I have no say on the matter and I should have no say. What I'm getting at is that it's the mother's decision whether or not to take the chance of raising a child under inadequate conditions. If the mother decides to take the chance, may God bless her. If not, may God still bless her. But the important thing is that it shouldn't be in anyone's hands but the mother's.

And should I take a shot at the kid who has a 50% chance of becoming either the next hitler or the next gandhi? Playing dice has no place when it comes to dealing with innocent lives.

...what? My whole point was that playing dice should have no place in innocent lives, and what I was arguing was that when you choose to not get an abortion of a child when you can't support the kid readily, you are rolling the dice.

Whoa, we are talking about adaption, aren't we? Whats your point here?

My point was that when it comes to adoption, the good-willed ones can choose to spend the 10,000 to make sure that the baby is delivered safely and is given to a caring family, and the others can have an abortion. I'm not advocating that everyone shouldn't spend the money to have a child, I'm just listing reasons why people wouldn't want to adopt and instead kill the child prematurely.

Yes slay, i am well aware of that "fact", yet it doesn't prove anything. A "fetus" is still going to turn into a human and not some animal.

My point is that until it takes on the characteristics of a human, it's still not a human yet. It's a fetus.

Every action has a consequence. Its a fact of life.

You're right, to a certain extent. Every action does have a consequence. Deciding to not have a baby via abortion end up in not having a baby, and for some people, trauma. But what you're suggesting is that every immoral action have an appropriate negative consequence, which seems rather gratuitous. Saying that reckless sex should lead into unwanted babies because reckless sex is immoral may have been true in the past, but why should we inject unnecessary bad into the world just to prove a point when we don't need to? It almost seems like you're trying to play God here, doling out an appropriate punishment for each sin that other people have committed. If that is the case, you tread on very dangerous territory.


And abortion too has consequences. While its not necessarily the same for every woman go through it, many women later on in their lives become overwhelming depressed based on their decision to kill a child they could have had.

And it should be up to the woman to weigh the consequences of abortion vs. the consequences of childbearing.

I really hope Nio didn't post while I was typing this. That would suck for me and my obsessive compulsive self.
-Slay

[Slay]

"And as a final thought, it is entirely hypocritical to be for the death penalty and against abortion. Both kill things, and death = bad, right?"
-Slay

Ahh....the perfect place to raise something I wanted to do before. Thanks Slay for setting that one up. Europeans criticize Turkey and the USA for having the death penalty. It's a reason, according to them, to keep Turkey out of the EU (it is one reason not the only one given). Get this Slay.....it is entirely hypocritical to be against death penalty and for abortion. And it is even more arrogant to criticize othes for being hypocritical in the process.

Whoa...way to hijack this nice discussion we were having...at least you're not Nio.

I agree. It is hypocritical to be against the death penalty and for abortion, unless you believe that a fetus isn't a human being, like many liberals do. IN fact, that's one of the primary tenets of their argument, that a fetus isn't a human being, and that human life begins either at birth or when the brain develops. I would say, more accurately, that it is entirely hypocritical to be against killing animals and be for abortion.
-Slay

[Agent Chameleon]

Personally, I have no say on the matter and I should have no say. What I'm getting at is that it's the mother's decision whether or not to take the chance of raising a child under inadequate conditions. If the mother decides to take the chance, may God bless her. If not, may God still bless her. But the important thing is that it shouldn't be in anyone's hands but the mother's.


I normally agree that the mother has authority over her child yet when it comes to life, I'm sorry. I believe that life is an inalienable right that cannot be infringed by anyone.


...what? My whole point was that playing dice should have no place in innocent lives, and what I was arguing was that when you choose to not get an abortion of a child when you can't support the kid readily, you are rolling the dice.


Whoa partner.../me is confused. : /

You are also rolling the dice when aborting the child. At least when the mother does not abort her child, she giving the child a shot in life, versus aborting the child and not giving him/her a chance.


My point was that when it comes to adoption, the good-willed ones can choose to spend the 10,000 to make sure that the baby is delivered safely and is given to a caring family, and the others can have an abortion. I'm not advocating that everyone shouldn't spend the money to have a child, I'm just listing reasons why people wouldn't want to adopt and instead kill the child prematurely.


Thats a good point. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the money has to come out of the mother's pocket. While I am no fan of socialism, perhaps local communities can help provide for it. Or private organizations that deal with adaption. There are many other solutions out there besides abortions.


My point is that until it takes on the characteristics of a human, it's still not a human yet. It's a fetus.


And that fetus will become a human. Not a toad. Not a lion. And not a goblin. Or an uncooked wad of meat (like Meatwad :D. Sorry, I'm a ATHF fanboy.)


You're right, to a certain extent. Every action does have a consequence. Deciding to not have a baby via abortion end up in not having a baby, and for some people, trauma. But what you're suggesting is that every immoral action have an appropriate negative consequence, which seems rather gratuitous. Saying that reckless sex should lead into unwanted babies because reckless sex is immoral may have been true in the past, but why should we inject unnecessary bad into the world just to prove a point when we don't need to? It almost seems like you're trying to play God here, doling out an appropriate punishment for each sin that other people have committed. If that is the case, you tread on very dangerous territory.


Whoa, whose talking about God? I hope this doesn't turn into a religion thread . -_-

I wasn't saying reckless sex is immoral, nor was I saying that its 100% negative; just that it comes with both good and bad consequences. And people should accept that. You have sex without a condom, and you happen to get pregnant, well thats too bad. Either take the burden of being a mother or give it up for adaption. More life doesn't need to be lost to account for a mistake.


And it should be up to the woman to weigh the consequences of abortion vs. the consequences of childbearing.


Heres the libertarian philosophy: "People should free to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm others." In my view, abortion does harm since I believe that the "fetus" is a human in development.

But you are right Slay that it all depends on how you view the fetus. While this thread purely dwells in the ethical realm, politically I think that abortion should not be banned by the national government since this issue is too divisive. I think it would be better for states/provinces/local communities to decide. What do you guys think?

[Kingcrazygenius]

I support the killing of humans, but not the killing of animals, unless they are to be eaten and taste really good.

[Nio the Namless]

I tend to argue from what I think I would do. Admitingly I am not talking about law right now



I would go through the whole debate thingy but I don't have time.... must...get..back to work..


.....quickly tried to find non-biased scource.....frustration....

[Slay]

Gah... Apologize for my absence, forums = mad teh erratic.

I normally agree that the mother has authority over her child yet when it comes to life, I'm sorry. I believe that life is an inalienable right that cannot be infringed by anyone.

Don't apologize to me, apologize to the mothers who have to skip meals and work fifteen hours+ a day with no weekends to support their children because of your need for morality. It may not be right, but it IS a necessity to have, because when you give the shaft to single poor women who are going to be mothers whether they can afford it or not just to please your ethics, it is shameful in so many different ways. Instead of killing one life, you are destroying two.

You are also rolling the dice when aborting the child. At least when the mother does not abort her child, she giving the child a shot in life, versus aborting the child and not giving him/her a chance.

Why are you rolling the dice when you abort a child? Abortion is the opposite of dice-rolling, it's laying down your cards and walking away from the table. When you walk away from the gambling table, you are not rolling the dice at all. You are smoothing out your life for consistency. Only if the odds are in your favor should you roll the dice, and then only if you know how to play the game.

Thats a good point. But it doesn't necessarily mean that the money has to come out of the mother's pocket. While I am no fan of socialism, perhaps local communities can help provide for it. Or private organizations that deal with adaption. There are many other solutions out there besides abortions.

Listen. No matter who it comes from, someone's going to pay the ten grand. If it's coming from my tax money, I'm going to petition city hall. I don't want my tax money to go to someone who *could* get an abortion, I want it to be helping fund policemen or firemen or teachers. Private organizations won't do it, because the private orgaanizations want to make a profit out of it. Do you really want to condone selling babies for $10,000? You shouldn't keep making bad solutions to things just so that your ethics remain untainted. There is no way that, economically, adoption can compare with abortion.

And that fetus will become a human. Not a toad. Not a lion. And not a goblin. Or an uncooked wad of meat

All right, so it's not yet a human, but it will become a human. That just puts it on the level of animal, until it has the necessary characteristics and abilities of a human.

I wasn't saying reckless sex is immoral, nor was I saying that its 100% negative; just that it comes with both good and bad consequences. And people should accept that. You have sex without a condom, and you happen to get pregnant, well thats too bad. Either take the burden of being a mother or give it up for adaption. More life doesn't need to be lost to account for a mistake.

The whole idea is that you eliminate the bad consequences of pretty much everything that is not intrinsically bad. Saying 'deal with it' is completely unnecessary when you're able to avoid 'dealing with it' by doing something. That's the whole idea of it. When people make mistakes, they shouldn't have to pay for it, unless you want to argue in the realm of 'survival of the fittest', where the people that don't make mistakes live and the ones that do live a bad life and die, along with their offspring.

Heres the libertarian philosophy: "People should free to do whatever they want, so long as it doesn't harm others."

All right, then let's put it this way: If you illegalize abortion, you are harming the mother who cannot afford her son, and thus your actions are wrong. Essentially, you're being the judge and the jury on this one, because you have sentenced the mother to a life of terrible conditions and a incredibly difficult life so that it keeps at least one person alive - the son of the mother. You understand that you CANNOT do this. I would not be in disfavor of 'abortion hearings' that would take place before an abortion, that would see if the perosn can easily support the child or not. Note the word 'easily' because I have no illusions about a person's ability to survive, it can be done, but it is simply not worth it.

In my view, abortion does harm since I believe that the "fetus" is a human in development.

Why don't you instead think of the fetus as an unwilling martyr, who sacrificed his life so that his mother could go on to live a life that isn't a total hellhole?
-Slay

[TechnoHamster]

A pre-human-brain fetus is a human. It is not, however, a person. We don't give rights to humans because we're racist bastards, we give rights to humans because they're extraordinarily smart. If a pig could talk and do poetry, art and quantum mechanics, I'd like to think we'd give it rights as a person. If it can't, well then we chop it up and eat its ass for breakfast.

The fact that a pre-human-brain fetus is human is irrelevant; its less sentient then an animal. Thus it gets less rights then an animal. Lets start with the right to be slaughtered and eaten.

As for it having the potential to become a person, so does sperm. Hell, so do pigs the way technology is going nowadays.

[Kingcrazygenius]

There are some people in this world who should have been aborted. You know who you are.

You're a better example of that than anyone else here Bug boy.

[Agent Chameleon]

Don't apologize to me, apologize to the mothers who have to skip meals and work fifteen hours+ a day with no weekends to support their children because of your need for morality. It may not be right, but it IS a necessity to have, because when you give the shaft to single poor women who are going to be mothers whether they can afford it or not just to please your ethics, it is shameful in so many different ways. Instead of killing one life, you are destroying two.

And it doesn't have to be that way. Adaption, private organizations, and orphanages are alternative solutions. They may not be perfect, but its better than denying the unborn a shot in life. I'm not interested in imposing "my" ethics. I would think that the right to life is one of the inalienable, universal rights in this world that applies to everyone, be they the unborn, the condemned, or whomever else.



Why are you rolling the dice when you abort a child? Abortion is the opposite of dice-rolling, it's laying down your cards and walking away from the table. When you walk away from the gambling table, you are not rolling the dice at all. You are smoothing out your life for consistency. Only if the odds are in your favor should you roll the dice, and then only if you know how to play the game.

You are rolling the dice since you don't know of the potentially bad consequences that can result from abortion.


Listen. No matter who it comes from, someone's going to pay the ten grand. If it's coming from my tax money, I'm going to petition city hall. I don't want my tax money to go to someone who *could* get an abortion, I want it to be helping fund policemen or firemen or teachers. Private organizations won't do it, because the private orgaanizations want to make a profit out of it. Do you really want to condone selling babies for $10,000? You shouldn't keep making bad solutions to things just so that your ethics remain untainted. There is no way that, economically, adoption can compare with abortion.


Thats why it would be better for local communities to deal with the issue. And since when is adaption selling a child?


All right, so it's not yet a human, but it will become a human. That just puts it on the level of animal, until it has the necessary characteristics and abilities of a human.

Animals will turn into humans? :y-mm:

Honestly i think equating unborn humans and animals is quite a stretch...

There are many humans in this world that don't have all the necessary characteristics and abilites of a human. Does that make them sub-human, according to your logic?


The whole idea is that you eliminate the bad consequences of pretty much everything that is not intrinsically bad. Saying 'deal with it' is completely unnecessary when you're able to avoid 'dealing with it' by doing something. That's the whole idea of it. When people make mistakes, they shouldn't have to pay for it, unless you want to argue in the realm of 'survival of the fittest', where the people that don't make mistakes live and the ones that do live a bad life and die, along with their offspring.

No one is talking about neo-Darwinian ideology. But its true that there are times where you have to accept the consequences (which aren't necessarily bad.). No matter what my situation is, I never have the right to kill anybody for any reason, even for my own survival. (Of course that doesn't invalidate self-defense, but that is a seperate story.)



All right, then let's put it this way: If you illegalize abortion, you are harming the mother who cannot afford her son, and thus your actions are wrong. Essentially, you're being the judge and the jury on this one, because you have sentenced the mother to a life of terrible conditions and a incredibly difficult life so that it keeps at least one person alive - the son of the mother. You understand that you CANNOT do this. I would not be in disfavor of 'abortion hearings' that would take place before an abortion, that would see if the perosn can easily support the child or not. Note the word 'easily' because I have no illusions about a person's ability to survive, it can be done, but it is simply not worth it.


It doesn't always turn out that way. Like I said before, there are better alternatives to abortion that can save both the life of the mother and the child.


Why don't you instead think of the fetus as an unwilling martyr, who sacrificed his life so that his mother could go on to live a life that isn't a total hellhole?
-Slay

And an unwilling martyr is quite a contradiction, now ain't it?

[Agent Chameleon]

Sorry for the double post, but its past the 20min limit.

Slay, I think you have a lot of good points and you have helped me in thinking more about this very controversial topic. I still disagree but regardless, this issue is just something that can't be resolved easily.

Now to change the topic a little. What do you guys think of laws regarding abortion. Should abortion be banned/legalized across the nation, or should local communities decide on the matter?

I also find Slay's idea on abortion hearings a lil interesting. What do you guys think?

[Nio the Namless]

12@*(&^#)*(@&#)(@*&) computer.....



anyway....


Since I am taking phycology at the moment I will comment on tramatizing lives...


People who have tramatizing experiences can and do overcome them. It takes a long time and requires they try and live a normal life. It may take a while but most people can get there lives back. They may ever be the same person but they are not nessisarly a bad on either. The mind will intentionally learn things (conditioned learning) that will make everyday events (like seeing black shoes which captores were wearing) could scare you. People may become scary but over time these things decline. This is a proven fact. In some cases people are never the same adn will always hate life. Many people came back from veitnam(sp) and proceeded to live normal lives. Even those tortured for many years. Some of these tortured people even remained in love with there wives (a common problem). And I am not talking about a few isolated people either. Most people change but most people are not torn apart by these events

(I could name other things too like the Chinesse using US soldiers to build a rail road... it was the equivilent of being a holocaust survivor)


So I want to simply say that these people will turn out bad/scared or in some way hating life is unfounded and false. Some will indeed and a greater number of those raised in such enviroments indeed show great levels of stress and whatnot but not so much as to eliminate there chances at a good life (and far less to equat most never get one).


There is also the debate (of course) about now much a person is defined by there genes. So it is even questionable to say that bad parents affect more then the child's attitudes, beleives, religion, and morals.

[Nio the Namless]

I also find Slay's idea on abortion hearings a lil interesting. What do you guys think?
That would be fine by me. Just so you just can't up and get an abortion any old time, and for any old reason you want. Make it so that it is difficult (though not impossible) to get an abortion. Of course have certian guidelines and perhaps make it easier for **** victums and easier yet for those that may die...


as far as Slay's arguement goes I have heard it before... and that I have been edgy for some reason... You ever had those days?

[Kingcrazygenius]

I am against abortion hearings. Like everything else they would end up being dominated by whether the judge was a democrat or a republican. Just let them kill their babies, the woman will be the only one who might miss it.

[undsputed1]

"unless you believe that a fetus isn't a human being, like many liberals do. "

That's convenient...but your right, it's what they claim. So it's wrong to kill the established serial killer who is 40 years old but it's okay to kill the unborn fetus? Pretty messed up.

[Canadian Tire Money]

your poop is alive! don't flush it away!

[Kingcrazygenius]

Please, poop is nothing but a fuel source.

[Canadian Tire Money]

Please, poop is nothing but a fuel source.

quiet, you poop murderer!

[Kingcrazygenius]

Feeding it to the dingos is cheaper:)

[TechnoHamster]

Bleh.......

[Desert_Eagle25]

Right now, I want to pounce on Techno and make sweet love to him...

*cough*

Thats besides the point. Abortion is the right of the mother. I do believe abortion should only be done in the earliest stages of pregnancy, though, and anything beyond that where the pregnancy is easily visible should be prohibited then.

[Canadian Tire Money]

i think it is a simple issue. why the hell do you protect the right of the not living at the cost of the (tax paying?) living?

if i throw a rock into the ocean do i get charged with manslaughter?

The whole issue is control. some people want the government to enforce their morality. the government should have no business in the bedrooms of a nation. also, they should have no business over our bodies. if i want to clip my finger nails, i shouldn't have to get a permit. to the extreme, the government could then force ID tattoos on all of us. my body is my body. it is simple.

if you are concerned about making sure each child has a chance to have a life, i suggest helping out the millions of starving. it will make you feel all warm inside.

economically speaking, Pregnancies can cripple three people at once. i would like to think that the unborn tissues right ends when it harms others:) yeah yeah, i just said that because someone is going to bring up the rights end when it harms someone else arguement. i just wanted to have some fun with it.

[Agent Chameleon]

if i throw a rock into the ocean do i get charged with manslaughter?

But an unborn child is not a rock. :P


The whole issue is control. some people want the government to enforce their morality. the government should have no business in the bedrooms of a nation. also, they should have no business over our bodies. if i want to clip my finger nails, i shouldn't have to get a permit. to the extreme, the government could then force ID tattoos on all of us. my body is my body. it is simple.


Restricting abortion is not about morality. Is punishing murder an overzealous attempt at imposing morality? And as far as I am concerned, the unborn child is not apart of "anyone"'s body. Its a being that is being developed and is not a possession of anyone.

[lordshadowbane]

An unborn child is not part of the womans body. It has a different genetic code from the mother and everyone of her genes. Therefore it is not part of her body so she has no right to kill it.

[Canadian Tire Money]

an unborn fetus could be a rock if you put it in the freezer for a few hours.

if it is alive and not a part of anyones body, it's rights end when it forces someone to house and feed it for 9 months ? after all, pregnancy poses many risks for the mother in the best of cases. this is the arguement against smoking, isn't it?

i have my own definition of what is alive. can it survive outside the mothers body by itself? by itself means without the help of incumbators. the difference is i am not forcing something on someone.


that is the thing, agent, "as far as you are concerned". that is your opinion. which you would like to see forced on people. i.e. what i am talking about.

if an embryo and fetus are alive, where does the being alive thing stop? as an egg? is having a period okay with you, or is that violating an eggs chance to be alive? would i be the menstrating baby murdering monster? what about skin tissue, that is alive. if i rip a chunk of skin off of my hand, it will die. am i criminally responsible for that?

the fact is that the government measures things by how old you are. in Canada and the US you age on your birth day, not the aniversery of your second trimester. maybe the drinking age should be 20 years and 6 months after birth (for you crazy americans)?

lordnoname, it is a product manufactured by the mother. it is physically attached to the mother. open and shut case. you are right though, it is party the fathers. i think any decision should have the consultation of the father.

[The Cosmic Fool]

Adoption would be the best solution, but we all know the world does not work that way. Women are always going to choose to abort their babies, regardless of how anyone feels about it. Listen, the bottom line is that it should be an option to the mother. If she wants to do it, let her live with that on her shoulders. Let her live with it.

Personally, I don't believe any one of us has the right to decide whether it is right or not. Take science and religion out of it, and it's just another choice. I don't think any of us has the right unless we have been in that situation to choose.

What's funny is that we humans believe it is wrong to kill a child in the womb, but yet we feel fine about slaugtering children in another country. Odd.

[Agent Chameleon]

if it is alive and not a part of anyones body, it's rights end when it forces someone to house and feed it for 9 months ? after all, pregnancy poses many risks for the mother in the best of cases. this is the arguement against smoking, isn't it?

And some studies have indicated that abortion can cause breast cancer. Whats your point?


i have my own definition of what is alive. can it survive outside the mothers body by itself? by itself means without the help of incumbators. the difference is i am not forcing something on someone.

Sorry CTM, but that doesn't work. Can a newborn child survive on its own? Of course not. Therefore is it not alive?



that is the thing, agent, "as far as you are concerned". that is your opinion. which you would like to see forced on people. i.e. what i am talking about.

Regardless, society has to draw boundaries on what is wrong and what is not. I.e. I could say that murder/**** is wrong because its your opinion and your imposing your morality upon me and everyone else.


if an embryo and fetus are alive, where does the being alive thing stop? as an egg? is having a period okay with you, or is that violating an eggs chance to be alive? would i be the menstrating baby murdering monster? what about skin tissue, that is alive. if i rip a chunk of skin off of my hand, it will die. am i criminally responsible for that?

An egg is just an egg. There is no sperm in it, therefore no unique being that being formed.


the fact is that the government measures things by how old you are. in Canada and the US you age on your birth day, not the aniversery of your second trimester. maybe the drinking age should be 20 years and 6 months after birth (for you crazy americans)?

Sorry CTM, I fail to see where you going with this. And it would be 21 years and 9 months, according to our laws. :P

What's funny is that we humans believe it is wrong to kill a child in the womb, but yet we feel fine about slaugtering children in another country. Odd.

Yes war sucks. So how does that validate abortion?

[Canadian Tire Money]

i clearly said that i meant without the use of things like incubators. new borns apparently don't need incubators to survive.

society has to draw boundries. indeed. interestingly enough they already have, and abortion is not considered wrong. you can't kill something that isn't alive.

breast cancer from abortion is different. if someone is forced to have a child, there is not consent. what that means is that the mother has the health risks forced on her by others. if she has an abortion, any posible healthrisk is consented to with the full knowledge of the risks. that is a big difference, similar to someone being force feed a tube of sec ond hand smoke, compared to vchoosing to smoke on their own.


if the governmenmt doesn't reconize the person as being alive, how can they charge you with murder. that is the point of the birthday speal. if they think that fetuses are alive, then they are welcome to change how age limits and birth certificates work.

war sucks. not really. the point is that people are trying to criminalize killing fetuses while also supporting the bombing and killing of another country. that is a double standard. either you are a fan of life, or you are not. meanwhile, Partly because of the western worlds actions, people are starving around the world. you know, the kids that used to be fetuses.


so you are saying that once you add sperm and eggs, that it is alive?

[TechnoHamster]

We don't give rights to humans because we're racist bastards, we give rights to humans because they're extraordinarily smart. I've changed my mind.

[Agent Chameleon]

i clearly said that i meant without the use of things like incubators. new borns apparently don't need incubators to survive.

society has to draw boundries. indeed. interestingly enough they already have, and abortion is not considered wrong. you can't kill something that isn't alive.

Actually there are newborn babies that need incubators for whatever reason. Are they fit for a late-term abortion?

Perhaps in Canada that is the case, but in America certainly not. Abortion was legalized through an illegal Supreme Court decision in 1973 that affected the whole nation, and the majority of Americans are not happy about that.


breast cancer from abortion is different. if someone is forced to have a child, there is not consent. what that means is that the mother has the health risks forced on her by others. if she has an abortion, any posible healthrisk is consented to with the full knowledge of the risks. that is a big difference, similar to someone being force feed a tube of sec ond hand smoke, compared to vchoosing to smoke on their own.

No one is forced to have a child! (**** of course is a different story.) That is the point. When two consenting adults have sex, they should be aware of the consequences.


if the governmenmt doesn't reconize the person as being alive, how can they charge you with murder. that is the point of the birthday speal. if they think that fetuses are alive, then they are welcome to change how age limits and birth certificates work.


That is still irrelevant. Just because the government (in the U.S.) accepts abortion does not automatically mean that fetuses aren't alive.


war sucks. not really. the point is that people are trying to criminalize killing fetuses while also supporting the bombing and killing of another country. that is a double standard. either you are a fan of life, or you are not. meanwhile, Partly because of the western worlds actions, people are starving around the world. you know, the kids that used to be fetuses.

Yes that is a double standard. So what? What does that have to do with abortion? Being pro-death penalty and pro-life is also a double standard, yet that doesn't automatically invalidate either position.


so you are saying that once you add sperm and eggs, that it is alive?

What I'm saying is that when a sperm and egg join together, a unique combination of genes form that later on become a person like you or me.

[undsputed1]

"lordnoname, it is a product manufactured by the mother. it is physically attached to the mother."

And it is physically attached to the mother at the time it is born as well. But for some reason, pro-abortionists seem to agree that it is wrong to kill it then. It's always attached....so why would it be okay early and not later?

[Nio the Namless]

"lordnoname, it is a product manufactured by the mother. it is physically attached to the mother."

And it is physically attached to the mother at the time it is born as well. But for some reason, pro-abortionists seem to agree that it is wrong to kill it then. It's always attached....so why would it be okay early and not later?
also a fetus (I forget at what point, I think 2 months before birth) can survive outside the mother with the proper medical equipment.

I am with the whole its not a "part" of the mother's body. A fetus is not a organ, its not a tumor, its a organisum with a different genetic makeup. Before the stage of a fetus I am not sure though I don't think zygotes are technically human yet.... then again thats the first 2 week period of division or something and most eggs don't make it that long.

[SaroDarksbane]

The fact that a pre-human-brain fetus is human is irrelevant; its less sentient then an animal. Thus it gets less rights then an animal. Lets start with the right to be slaughtered and eaten.
Eagle eggs have a large number of protections and rights.

And Slay, what if she has the child and then later falls into hard times? Can she kill the child later?

[TechnoHamster]

No one thinks and Eagle is a person. Their brainless blobs are protected because they're an endangered species. In case you haven't noticed, humans aren't.

Its the same reason why wetland habitats are protected, because we're worried about frogs dying off, not because the wetland is a person.

[Kingcrazygenius]

Strange, no one I meet seems that upset about fetus killing, and I'm in Texas.

[mojojojomo]

Holy Knight, im just speaking from experience. I'm quite surprised its remained this civil this long, though last time we had an abortion debate, there were more, erhm, 'godly' people on the boards.

I wonder, how do most of you feel about invitro fertilization? It's a process that involves the deaths of many embryos, but, as far as i can tell, there is rarely any concern raised about it.

The debate essentially boils down to what one considers human. People like Slay obviously believe that an embryo isn't human until it has taken on specifically human characteristics, while others seem to believe that the potential to become human is all that's required.

Personally, i believe that a foetus does not bear the necessary hallmarks of humanity to garuntee its rights. It's like saying horse riding while pregnant is equivilant to (attempted) homocide. To clarify, i would prefer adoption as an option, but sometimes its just not possible.

Undisputed, don't try and hijack a thread. And just so you know, the European Commission is poised to accept of Turkey's admission next week. Don't talk about things you have a meager knowledge of.

[Canadian Tire Money]

"Actually there are newborn babies that need incubators for whatever reason. Are they fit for a late-term abortion?"

sure, why not? i'm the baby killer. it's you that seems to find the possibility so discusting. emotional arguements are only effective on those being emotional. i'm also in favour of the family being able to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead.

of course there is a difference between being starved by your twin, or having a disease, and not being able to survive outside of a womb. a 4 week old baby can't survive outside.


"Perhaps in Canada that is the case, but in America certainly not. Abortion was legalized through an illegal Supreme Court decision in 1973 that affected the whole nation, and the majority of Americans are not happy about that. "

The supreme court seems to disagree on the legality of the decision. if the majority of the country wants to enslave black people, does that mean anti racism laws are illegal? to throw the question back to you, what if it was murder that most americans supported?

"No one is forced to have a child! (**** of course is a different story.) That is the point. When two consenting adults have sex, they should be aware of the consequences. "

and when they have an abortion, they should be aware of the consequences as well. as you are saying, breast cancer is a concern. :)

STD's are a consequence of sex. that is a risk. becoming pregnant is to a much smaller extent. if you gets aids from sex or cancer from smoking, there may be nothing you can do. when you get pregnant, you can do something about it. is it wrong to do something about something that is reversable?

It is something people can and should be aware of. being aware of it is different from having to go through with it if an alternative action is possible. afterall, two consenting adults could agree before sex that any pregnancy will be aborted.

"That is still irrelevant. Just because the government (in the U.S.) accepts abortion does not automatically mean that fetuses aren't alive."

it means that the government does not consider them alive. when the group making the laws doesn't consider them alive, you can guess what that means for what the rules will be. if they want to change the laws that is fine with me, as long as they change all the laws that apply.



"Yes that is a double standard. So what? What does that have to do with abortion? Being pro-death penalty and pro-life is also a double standard, yet that doesn't automatically invalidate either position."

it doesn't have to do with the arguement. it has to do with the people making the arguement. the positions are not nessicarily invalidated, but mr. double standard who is making the arguement may be invalidated.

"What I'm saying is that when a sperm and egg join together, a unique combination of genes form that later on become a person like you or me"

aww. . . yes, later on becomes a person. you've just said it. they aren't people like you or me.


undsputed, experts can think whatever they want. that has nothing to do with my arguement. what other people think is not my concern.

[Nio the Namless]

Why do people consider the those of use that have highly active emotional sides to be....whats the word

unlogical?

pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is different. At least I have told some people that if I am ever brain dead they may feel free to let me die. There is at least a chance of being given permission. And further the fact that the person is already "dead." I don't think living a life in a constant state of unconsciousness can be very fun.


but I find it poitless to constantly argue over something that makes me sick inside because I simply can not argue well then.

[Kingcrazygenius]

If someone is going to get an abortion, they should do it before it's a fetus.

[undsputed1]

"Undisputed, don't try and hijack a thread. And just so you know, the European Commission is poised to accept of Turkey's admission next week. Don't talk about things you have a meager knowledge of."

It wasn't an attempt to hijack anything. It is directly on topic and vey relevant. In fact, my comments were based on what Slay said for the most part. It is just so amazingly hypocritical that an abortion thread seemed like the perfect place to discuss it. You don't think so huh? You think it belongs in what subject then, exactly?

And if your saying they are going to accept Turkey into the EU, I had not heard that. You probably aren't aware, but most of the news here is about that election thing we have here in the US.....yea... So Turkey is getting in huh? We'll, I wouldn't say I have meager knowledge of it, especially considering I'm the one saying they should be part of it in the first place and you were on the opposite of that argument. I guess the EU leaders agree with this American more :)

[Kingcrazygenius]

Obviously your knowledge was 'meager' if you just now found out. And stop trying to hijack our discussion about killing helpless babies!

[undsputed1]

Well look at you......you know, when your working 50 hours a week and paying attention to your country's election, stories like this slip by. That whole debate thng that went on last week was a bigger story than the EU. Afterall, which one has more of an impact on the world :) That cheap shot was for Mr. Pro and some others. But I'm well aware of the arguments about Turkey and the EU.....in fact, we had a whole thread on it. So it's anything but meager, King.

Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who argue for abortion and against the death penalty only points out that they do it out of their own selfishness.....because they wanted to fool around, were too stupid to use protection, and don't want to deal with the consequences. That puts it pretty straight for you all.

[lordshadowbane]

Why do you have bugs sign????

[Dragolas77]

Avatars can be someone else

It isn't laff, it's bug (in rushforpyre...)

[Desert_Eagle25]

You know what I find really funny? undsputed1 was th eone who told me about this forum, back when we were vets at the Fed2k Forums...now look at us O_o

[Dragolas77]

Whoa... odd...

[Agent Chameleon]

sure, why not? i'm the baby killer. it's you that seems to find the possibility so discusting. emotional arguements are only effective on those being emotional. i'm also in favour of the family being able to pull the plug on someone who is brain dead.

I wasn't being emotional CTM. Nor am I accusing you of being a baby killer. All I was saying was according to your logic, anyone that can't exist outside of an incubator is not "alive." Well, there are humans after birth who need to exist in incubators. And they aren't always "brain dead."


The supreme court seems to disagree on the legality of the decision. if the majority of the country wants to enslave black people, does that mean anti racism laws are illegal? to throw the question back to you, what if it was murder that most americans supported?

The point is that the Supreme Court had no authority on the matter of abortion. Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, an a power "invented" in 1803 in the infamous Marbury vs. Madison Case. If you want to get into arguing American law with me, go ahead.


and when they have an abortion, they should be aware of the consequences as well. as you are saying, breast cancer is a concern. :)

STD's are a consequence of sex. that is a risk. becoming pregnant is to a much smaller extent. if you gets aids from sex or cancer from smoking, there may be nothing you can do. when you get pregnant, you can do something about it. is it wrong to do something about something that is reversable?

That is a good point. But as I've said 2 zillion times before, if you can get the best result without anyone dying, then why not go for it? :)



It is something people can and should be aware of. being aware of it is different from having to go through with it if an alternative action is possible. afterall, two consenting adults could agree before sex that any pregnancy will be aborted.

Or use protection. As far as I know, condoms have a 99.99% job at preventing pregnancies.


it means that the government does not consider them alive. when the group making the laws doesn't consider them alive, you can guess what that means for what the rules will be. if they want to change the laws that is fine with me, as long as they change all the laws that apply.

Fair enough.


it doesn't have to do with the arguement. it has to do with the people making the arguement. the positions are not nessicarily invalidated, but mr. double standard who is making the arguement may be invalidated.

Correct. I guess I just did not like how Comsic Fool generalized pro-life folks as being pro-war. Or at least that was my perception. :)


aww. . . yes, later on becomes a person. you've just said it. they aren't people like you or me.

That is true, just like newborns aren't quite like you or me, or toddlers for that matter.


I wonder, how do most of you feel about invitro fertilization? It's a process that involves the deaths of many embryos, but, as far as i can tell, there is rarely any concern raised about it.

You bring up an interesting point mojo. From what I have heard, there are multiple options given to patients as far as what to do with extra embryos. Among them are freezing them for later use and donating them to other couples.

[Kingcrazygenius]

Pointing out the hypocrisy of people who argue for abortion and against the death penalty only points out that they do it out of their own selfishness.....because they wanted to fool around, were too stupid to use protection, and don't want to deal with the consequences. That puts it pretty straight for you all.

Well I am in favor of killing babies, prisoners, and plenty of other people, but not animals. Does that count as hypocrisy?

[undsputed1]

Nope, that's more like it. At least your consistent.

"You know what I find really funny? undsputed1 was th eone who told me about this forum, back when we were vets at the Fed2k Forums...now look at us O_o"

Hehe....haven't been there in a while. What though.....you didn't like my post? I got a point Des :) It's just some people don't like the points I make.

[Slay]

Holy tapdancing Christ! I leave thisa thread for a weekend and it grows b 40 frikkin' posts! Well, it's all good, I went to Vegas and got drunk off my ass.

And Slay, what if she has the child and then later falls into hard times? Can she kill the child later?

She cannot, for the simple reason that I believe that after the first trimester, a baby is a human and cannot b aborted/killed unless it will save the momma's life.


The point is that the Supreme Court had no authority on the matter of abortion. Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, an a power "invented" in 1803 in the infamous Marbury vs. Madison Case. If you want to get into arguing American law with me, go ahead.

According to the Constitution, slaves and women can't vote. The Constitution was designed so that it could be expounded upon. And the fact that the Supreme Court has/should have no power on abortion is silly. They are ruling that banning abortion is illegal, in the same manner that banning petition is illegal. Freedom of action is covered under freedom of speech.

Or use protection. As far as I know, condoms have a 99.99% job at preventing pregnancies.

Most people do. But you can't force them to use condoms if they don't want to. It's their choice which kind of birth control to use.

That's convenient...but your right, it's what they claim. So it's wrong to kill the established serial killer who is 40 years old but it's okay to kill the unborn fetus? Pretty messed up.

Serial killer = human. Fetus = pre-human. Feus != human. That's the line of logic used. Don't kill humans.


You are rolling the dice since you don't know of the potentially bad consequences that can result from abortion.

Just like all other hospital operations. But I can assure you that Living with a child you can't support is far more risky than going through a routine hospital operation.

Thats why it would be better for local communities to deal with the issue. And since when is adaption selling a child?

Private companies will not fund adoption unless they stand to make a profit out of it. Thus, they will try and get at least $10,000 from the child itself. That stands to reason that sellign will become an option. And again, I'll be damned if my tax money goes to something I feel is unnecessary. Let there be private fundraisings, because I'm not goign to chip in any part of the $10,000, ever. What if you had to donate forcibly money to Kerry's campaign because it was deemed to be just that Kerry needs some more $$?

Animals will turn into humans?

Honestly i think equating unborn humans and animals is quite a stretch...

There are many humans in this world that don't have all the necessary characteristics and abilites of a human. Does that make them sub-human, according to your logic?

1: Never said it.
2: Unborn humans are on the same level as animals, in that I define a human as having a rather large brain. Until the brain comes out, the human is essentially an animal.
3: How can you say that, when you haven't even defined what a human is? Do those so-called 'sub-humans' have small brains?

But its true that there are times where you have to accept the consequences (which aren't necessarily bad.)

Very true. However, you don't have to accept the consequences when the negative consequences can be eliminated.

It doesn't always turn out that way. Like I said before, there are better alternatives to abortion that can save both the life of the mother and the child.

Those alternatives cost a helluva lot more and often can make things very tough on the mother. THe mother certainly has the right to invoke those alternatives, but not if she doesn't want to.


And an unwilling martyr is quite a contradiction, now ain't it?

Not necessarily. A martyr is someone who gives their life for a cause. The cause is quality of life. And the fetus was not consulted, but it gave up its life for something that is incredibly valuable.

That is a good point. But as I've said 2 zillion times before, if you can get the best result without anyone dying, then why not go for it?

Define 'best result'. If 'best result' is just simply 'least people dying', then you've just become an honorary member of the department of redundancy department.

So I want to simply say that these people will turn out bad/scared or in some way hating life is unfounded and false.

I never said that, I just said that they would end up dealing smack.
-Slay

[disjuku]

I think its Ok. well, I think its ok if thats what the parents want, and if they are getting it then it would kinda hint that they do want that...

but anyway, that early on, it is giong to be much mroe beneficial than otherwise, if they were to keep the kid, it would make life on everyone much harder (parents dropping out of school or whatever, having to feed it etc, the kid growing up with parents who are not ready etc.)

gotta go to a lecture, so i'll cut this post short.

[Canadian Tire Money]

I wasn't being emotional CTM. Nor am I accusing you of being a baby killer. All I was saying was according to your logic, anyone that can't exist outside of an incubator is not "alive." Well, there are humans after birth who need to exist in incubators. And they aren't always "brain dead."

like i said, there are cases, but the reasons for being in the incubator are different from "not being born yet". there are diseases or things like that. for the record the brain dead scenerio was for much older people, not babies.


The point is that the Supreme Court had no authority on the matter of abortion. Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, an a power "invented" in 1803 in the infamous Marbury vs. Madison Case. If you want to get into arguing American law with me, go ahead.

sure, and i will win. the reason is that you are talking constitution while i am talking reality. it doesn't matter at this point if they aren't allowed to do that, they already have. the deed is done. you may proceed to cite all the cases you want, but then you will have to explain why it has happened anyways. am i right?

i feel you pain though. right now the government of canada is letting the courts settle the hard issues while they do dick all.





That is a good point. But as I've said 2 zillion times before, if you can get the best result without anyone dying, then why not go for it? :)

who dies? this is the key point that me and you will never get past.

the thing with saying best result is that it is ambigious. what is best for you, and best for someone else are different things. for you, having a kid that will suck your resources for the next 20 or so years may be peachy. others may not have the same view. afterall i don't think that most people who have abortions think that having the baby is the best option. most don't even think it is a good option.



Or use protection. As far as I know, condoms have a 99.99% job at preventing pregnancies.

these are not mutually exclusive. planning to abort does not exclude the possibility of using birthcontrol of various forms.


That is true, just like newborns aren't quite like you or me, or toddlers for that matter.

at least they are alive :)

[Agent Chameleon]

Good to see ya back Slay. :)


According to the Constitution, slaves and women can't vote. The Constitution was designed so that it could be expounded upon. And the fact that the Supreme Court has/should have no power on abortion is silly. They are ruling that banning abortion is illegal, in the same manner that banning petition is illegal. Freedom of action is covered under freedom of speech.

Yes the Constitution can be expanded upon, but only through the Amendment process. For starters, there is no mentioning of judicial review in the Constitution. Second, the first amendment applies to the federal government, since it says "Congress". Therefore, if abortion was a protected form of "speech", it would only mean that the federal government cannot ban abortion. But the states can, if they wish, or leave abortion legal, which I think is the fair way of doing it.


Most people do. But you can't force them to use condoms if they don't want to. It's their choice which kind of birth control to use.

Never said that people should be forced to use condoms. People should be free to have whatever kind of sex they want. But at the same time acknowledge what can happen as a result and accept it.


Private companies will not fund adoption unless they stand to make a profit out of it. Thus, they will try and get at least $10,000 from the child itself. That stands to reason that sellign will become an option. And again, I'll be damned if my tax money goes to something I feel is unnecessary. Let there be private fundraisings, because I'm not goign to chip in any part of the $10,000, ever. What if you had to donate forcibly money to Kerry's campaign because it was deemed to be just that Kerry needs some more $$?

Not necessarily. There are many non-profit charity organizations out there.
And as far as taxpayer dollars go, while I would prefer not to see taxpayer dollars being used to subsize birth, what I am saying is to let local communities decide on the matter.



1: Never said it.
2: Unborn humans are on the same level as animals, in that I define a human as having a rather large brain. Until the brain comes out, the human is essentially an animal.
3: How can you say that, when you haven't even defined what a human is? Do those so-called 'sub-humans' have small brains?

While its true that an unborn baby's brain is surpassed by that of an animal, that doesn't make them viable for abortion nor are they considered non-living. Humans are in constant state of intellectual development that begins from their very conception. Its logical when you think about. A young adult's brain is much more well developed than a teenager (mostly :/) who in turn has a much more well developed brain than a toddler and so forth.



Not necessarily. A martyr is someone who gives their life for a cause. The cause is quality of life. And the fetus was not consulted, but it gave up its life for something that is incredibly valuable.

...what?



Define 'best result'. If 'best result' is just simply 'least people dying', then you've just become an honorary member of the department of redundancy department.

W00t! :bigclap:

Actually, when I mean best result, I mean a win-win. I.e., the baby is adapted, the mother doesn't have to take care of him/her is she can't for w/e reason, and no one has to die.

[Canadian Tire Money]

non profit companies still go after profit. all that non profit means is that the bottom line is balanced with other social considerations.

[Agent Chameleon]

like i said, there are cases, but the reasons for being in the incubator are different from "not being born yet". there are diseases or things like that. for the record the brain dead scenerio was for much older people, not babies.

Fair enough.


sure, and i will win. the reason is that you are talking constitution while i am talking reality. it doesn't matter at this point if they aren't allowed to do that, they already have. the deed is done. you may proceed to cite all the cases you want, but then you will have to explain why it has happened anyways. am i right?

And thats why us Yankees can't let the judges establish a dictatorship, now can we? :)


who dies? this is the key point that me and you will never get past.

the thing with saying best result is that it is ambigious. what is best for you, and best for someone else are different things. for you, having a kid that will suck your resources for the next 20 or so years may be peachy. others may not have the same view. afterall i don't think that most people who have abortions think that having the baby is the best option. most don't even think it is a good option.

Just because the prospect of having a baby may not seem like a "good option" does not give the parents the right to kill it.



these are not mutually exclusive. planning to abort does not exclude the possibility of using birthcontrol of various forms.

Correct. The difference is that no one is destroyed while people use protection.


at least they are alive :)

Now we are getting back into the whole what makes someone alive.

*sigh*, it seems that we are just repeating ourselves in this whole debate. :g-shake:

[mojojojomo]

You bring up an interesting point mojo. From what I have heard, there are multiple options given to patients as far as what to do with extra embryos. Among them are freezing them for later use and donating them to other couples.

True, the option is open to freeze or donate them. However, more often than not, the embryos are disgarded, often dozens at a time. Furthermore, process of invitro fertilization factors in that the female body to reject some of the zygotes. The reason women who have had fertility treatment sometimes have quintuplets or whatever is because the doctors place several zygotes in her womb to compensate for the likelihood of losing most of them.

The point is that the Supreme Court had no authority on the matter of abortion. Constitutionally speaking, the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, an a power "invented" in 1803 in the infamous Marbury vs. Madison Case. If you want to get into arguing American law with me, go ahead.

The Constitution is far from a static concept. If you try to apply the same standards today as when it was written it would fail utterly. What's more, it is up to the Supreme Courts to determine how a law is to be read. If the legalese behind an Act or the Constitution for that matter, leaves room for ambiguity, then something must decided how it is to be interpreted. The Court is as good a mechanism as any.

[Nio the Namless]

I never said that, I just said that they would end up dealing smack.
-Slay
*opens mouth*

*shuts mouth*

*opens*

Was that suppose to be funny cause I laughed?

(I am not making fun of you)

[TechnoHamster]

As far as I know, condoms have a 99.99% job at preventing pregnancies. Try 85-95%

While its true that an unborn baby's brain is surpassed by that of an animal, that doesn't make them viable for abortion Bigot.

[Nio the Namless]

Try 85-95%

Bigot.
1. Ture

2. I think you need to rethink that answer a little. Because if he is a Bigot surly you are also

[TechnoHamster]

Explain please.

[Nio the Namless]

Big´ot
Noun 1. bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own

chauvinist - a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind

antifeminist - someone who does not believe in the social or economic or political equality of men and women

homophobe - a person who hates or fears homosexual people

drumbeater, partisan, zealot - a fervent and even militant proponent of something

racialist, racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others

sectarian, sectarist, sectary - a member of a sect; "most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect"

segregationist, segregator - someone who believes the races should be kept apart


First off you are not the grand majority of these things but you do seem to have a certian intolerance for differening views. But I still wouldn't call you a bigot and I wouldn't call Agent Chameleon a bigot. You didn't even ask him why he made that statment. But I think I am probally just nick-picking

(which goes in hand with you don't abort animals... *some weird smiley to represent something....*)

[TechnoHamster]

I'm about as bigoted as those "Racism: Stop it!" posters. Which is apparently alot if your gonna take everything so damn literally.

[Nio the Namless]

I'm about as bigoted as those "Racism: Stop it!" posters. Which is apparently alot if your gonna take everything so damn literally.
I didn't mean to but there isn't a delet function on these forums....


that and I seem think about things after I post them some days...

[Canadian Tire Money]

i disagree with the difinition of what an anti feminist is.

my definition of an anti feminist is someone who doesn't believe that the big bad white man is pushing the women of the world down, and stopping them from breaking through the glass ceiling.

by my definition i am an antifeminist.

[Kingcrazygenius]

My definition of feminist is a woman who needs some sexual healing.

[mojojojomo]

Try 85-95%




Actually, if they're used right, it's more like 97%, and if coupled with spermicide (which they should be), it rises to something like 99.5%. And there are other ways of preventing pregnancy, ie the morining after pill, which is pretty much a garuntee.

[Canadian Tire Money]

Fair enough.



And thats why us Yankees can't let the judges establish a dictatorship, now can we? :)



Just because the prospect of having a baby may not seem like a "good option" does not give the parents the right to kill it.




Correct. The difference is that no one is destroyed while people use protection.



Now we are getting back into the whole what makes someone alive.

*sigh*, it seems that we are just repeating ourselves in this whole debate. :g-shake:

why not? we've already let party politics form a dictatorship.

the unborn babies right to take a person hostage end when they harm other people.

incorrect. if humans are made by the addition of eggs and sperm and a person takes action to actively prevent sperm and eggs from metting like they should have, one is directly destroying "people'. the arguement is already based on defending the rights of those who may not even be alive. i say defend them all the way. now, it has been awhikle since i have paid attention into the rules of liability, but that certainly seems to fit the bill.

[Slay]

Good to see ya back Slay. :)


It's good to see me back too.

Yes the Constitution can be expanded upon, but only through the Amendment process. For starters, there is no mentioning of judicial review in the Constitution. Second, the first amendment applies to the federal government, since it says "Congress". Therefore, if abortion was a protected form of "speech", it would only mean that the federal government cannot ban abortion. But the states can, if they wish, or leave abortion legal, which I think is the fair way of doing it.

News flash: states can't ban freedom of speech either. Ever heard of the word 'inalienable right'?


Never said that people should be forced to use condoms. People should be free to have whatever kind of sex they want. But at the same time acknowledge what can happen as a result and accept it.

If thye acknowledge that they want to have sex but not have a baby, you are forcing them to use condoms. Condoms are only 98% effective, so essentially every fiftieth person that uses a condom gets the shaft and a $10,000 bill to pay off.

Again, I'll say it, people should not have to accept it if there is an alternative to accepting it. That is just playing God again and doling out what you see as fitting punishments that aren't necessary.

Not necessarily. There are many non-profit charity organizations out there.
And as far as taxpayer dollars go, while I would prefer not to see taxpayer dollars being used to subsize birth, what I am saying is to let local communities decide on the matter.

And what if the family can't raise the $10,000 from the community? You've just damned them, essentially.

While its true that an unborn baby's brain is surpassed by that of an animal, that doesn't make them viable for abortion nor are they considered non-living. Humans are in constant state of intellectual development that begins from their very conception. Its logical when you think about. A young adult's brain is much more well developed than a teenager (mostly :/) who in turn has a much more well developed brain than a toddler and so forth.

While a < 3 month old fetus has no brain at all. That makes it an animal, on a level of intelligence.


W00t! :bigclap:

Actually, when I mean best result, I mean a win-win. I.e., the baby is adapted, the mother doesn't have to take care of him/her is she can't for w/e reason, and no one has to die.

That sounds like a utopia. First, you need to have a mother who can afford/fundraise the cost of childbirth. Secondly, she needs to be insured or be able to work during her pregnancy, otherwise she'll probably lose a job and be out of work and then REALLY be in serious sh*t. Thirdly, she needs to find a new parent. This can be extremely tough especially in urban environments where every day is a struggle for survival, no one wants an extra kid.

For its price(a prehuman life), you circumvent that entire checklist and go on living your life.

And thats why us Yankees can't let the judges establish a dictatorship, now can we?

Yankees suck.

drumbeater

That sounds like someone who masturbates too much.

Was that suppose to be funny cause I laughed?

If you read my posts from page 1 carefully, you'll see that this is one of the cornerstones of my arguments. The way I phrased it was jocular in nature, but it certainly gets the point across.

my definition of an anti feminist is someone who doesn't believe that the big bad white man is pushing the women of the world down, and stopping them from breaking through the glass ceiling.

You're wrong. Feminism = someone who advances the cause of women, literally. Antifeminist = someone who does NOT advance the cause of women. A woman hater, to be clear. A feminist hater is something entirely different. This is going back to its roots.
-Slay

[Nio the Namless]

If thye acknowledge that they want to have sex but not have a baby, you are forcing them to use condoms. Condoms are only 98% effective, so essentially every fiftieth person that uses a condom gets the shaft and a $10,000 bill to pay off.

Again, I'll say it, people should not have to accept it if there is an alternative to accepting it. That is just playing God again and doling out what you see as fitting If you read my posts from page 1 carefully, you'll see that this is one of the cornerstones of my arguments. The way I phrased it was jocular in nature, but it certainly gets the point across.

-Slay
Yet there are so many preventive menthods well before adortion. Morning after pill, birth control, special surgeries that can make you temporaly unfertile(don't ask me about them but they do exist). I just don't understand why every opinion needs to be out there when some are better then others. I would make an analogy but that would probally just come off as wrong. But I do believe there is alot of preventive methods you can take that perhaps should be more well known

If you read my posts from page 1 carefully, you'll see that this is one of the cornerstones of my arguments. The way I phrased it was jocular in nature, but it certainly gets the point across.
Just to be clear, I only ask because I knew it had a point but I wasn't sure if you meant it to be funny.

You're wrong. Feminism = someone who advances the cause of women, literally. Antifeminist = someone who does NOT advance the cause of women. A woman hater, to be clear. A feminist hater is something entirely different. This is going back to its roots.
Yes but some people disagree on what is advancing women's right. I think they should concentrate on getting into office personally. (and I am rooting for it)

*sigh*, it seems that we are just repeating ourselves in this whole debate.
That what happens when people disagree on the fundemental ground they stand on. It would take alot (and I am willing to admit it) to change my opinion. And that is cause you would have to change my believe system which is rooted pretty deep.

[Kingcrazygenius]

So tell me Nio, why is the morning-after pill less immoral than a 1st trimester abortion? Morning after pills kill zygotes! :y-sad:

[Slay]

Yet there are so many preventive menthods well before adortion. Morning after pill, birth control, special surgeries that can make you temporaly unfertile(don't ask me about them but they do exist). I just don't understand why every opinion needs to be out there when some are better then others. I would make an analogy but that would probally just come off as wrong. But I do believe there is alot of preventive methods you can take that perhaps should be more well known

Does it matter which one you're using? All of them prevent a pre-human from becoming a baby, just some do it later than others. With this, we re-emerge ourselves in the argument of when fetus is considered a human, I maintain that it's onyl after the first trimester does it begin to havw human-like characteristics.

Yes but some people disagree on what is advancing women's right. I think they should concentrate on getting into office personally. (and I am rooting for it)

Yes, and htink of all the kinky 'Senator Sex' porn there would be once women consistently get into office.

That what happens when people disagree on the fundemental ground they stand on. It would take alot (and I am willing to admit it) to change my opinion. And that is cause you would have to change my believe system which is rooted pretty deep.

Debate is not for changing opinions, you need downright brainwashing to accomplish that(CTM knows more on this, i'm sure). Rather, debate is for changing viewpoints. Where once I was a viciously liberal leftist who treated Michael Moore as Gospel, now I am a moderate-leaning-left person who edxamines both sides before saying something. And all because of the forums.

*hugs fora*
-Slay

[disjuku]

Does it matter which one you're using? All of them prevent a pre-human from becoming a baby, just some do it later than others. With this, we re-emerge ourselves in the argument of when fetus is considered a human, I maintain that it's onyl after the first trimester does it begin to havw human-like characteristics.

why not just say that they start off 0% human, and at the point where the sperm enters the egg it starts becoming more human? sure, its a bit rough, but it saves calling somethign human one second and not another... I think the whole idea is that the earlier you do it, the more you are just killing cells rather than killing a human.

and I stick with what I said before, getting an abortion in many cases is much better for everyone (mother and father not having to turn their whole lives around to work with this baby, the kid not having to grow up in a family where they were not wanted etc). And I think the the women should be able to choose themselves, about the people not selling the morning after pill in shops, other peoples beliefs should NOT be forced on or expected of other people.

[Canadian Tire Money]

have we gotten you to denounce communism yet?

i was a moderate left wing liberal 3 years ago. now, i may even be right of center (the political compass has me as extreme rightwing). more because of life then the forum, but whatever.

[Kingcrazygenius]

I don't think I'll ever stop being a monarch.

[Slay]

why not just say that they start off 0% human, and at the point where the sperm enters the egg it starts becoming more human? sure, its a bit rough, but it saves calling somethign human one second and not another... I think the whole idea is that the earlier you do it, the more you are just killing cells rather than killing a human.

That system is just ineffective, for at the very basic level of abortion we must divide the fetus's growth into two time periods, one where it is okay to destroy the fetus, and another where it is not okay.
-Slay

[disjuku]

That system is just ineffective, for at the very basic level of abortion we must divide the fetus's growth into two time periods, one where it is okay to destroy the fetus, and another where it is not okay.
-Slay
But everyone has a different opinion, so such a thing can't really be done.

If they dont want it, they should come to that conclusion pretty fast, unless they cant decide, in which case they should be Ok with it, instead of looking at it like 'get an abortion before its too human' why not 'get an abortion within the first month' or something... much less controvertial reasoning. Also, the way you are looking at it is as if one second its just a bunch of cells and the next its a fully developed human.

[Kingcrazygenius]

No, its more like one second it's a cell, and 23328000 seconds later its a fully developed human.

[Slay]

But everyone has a different opinion, so such a thing can't really be done.

If they dont want it, they should come to that conclusion pretty fast, unless they cant decide, in which case they should be Ok with it, instead of looking at it like 'get an abortion before its too human' why not 'get an abortion within the first month' or something... much less controvertial reasoning. Also, the way you are looking at it is as if one second its just a bunch of cells and the next its a fully developed human.

Sort of. I think that within the first trimester it's okay for an abortion to occur, because that's before the brain has developed, and that is b efore it's truly human. That's where I draw the line. Once the brain starts developing, it's really too late, IMHO. And my reasoning is still pretty controversial, even though I laid out a very specific timeperiod.
-Slay

[Nio the Namless]

So tell me Nio, why is the morning-after pill less immoral than a 1st trimester abortion? Morning after pills kill zygotes! :y-sad:
I didn't say I thought it was right, but I am not stupid enough to think I can make everyone except the fact when you have sex babies are born. And the grand majority of people die as zygotes, you just never know it. I simply think it is a "lesser of two evils."

[strathyboy]

What is the exact point at which it is considered human? Agree on that, and we have no argument at all. If we don't agree on that simply fact, then we can't agree on the issue ever.

Brain development shouldn't be the lone criteria, either, since there are many people alive now whose brains are not fully developed. There was even one girl born back a few years without most of her brain, and yet nobody argued that she wasn't human.

[Kingcrazygenius]

I read that ones brain does not finish developing until around early to mid twenties.

Anyone up for some 60th trimester abortion?

[Dragolas77]

Lmao...

I'm wishy-washy so i'm going to go with it's only allowed when the thing is a bag of cells, like right away...

Please, don't call me neutral. Neutral is for pansies...

[Slay]

What is the exact point at which it is considered human? Agree on that, and we have no argument at all. If we don't agree on that simply fact, then we can't agree on the issue ever.

Brain development shouldn't be the lone criteria, either, since there are many people alive now whose brains are not fully developed. There was even one girl born back a few years without most of her brain, and yet nobody argued that she wasn't human.

When the brain STARTS developing, rather. That's the first sign that it has transcended animal status.
-Slay

[strathyboy]

When the brain STARTS developing, rather. That's the first sign that it has transcended animal status.
-Slay

So what you're telling me that up until that point, there's no way to tell that it is human?

"Well, Mrs. Smith, we know there's something growing in you, but we're not sure whether it's a human or a platypus."

[Slay]

That's the first time that, in a vacuum, we can tell its a human. We know that it's gonna be a human.
-Slay

[undsputed1]

"That's the first time that, in a vacuum, we can tell its a human. We know that it's gonna be a human."

Ever see the movie Aliens?

[Canadian Tire Money]

the aliens series is thenumber one reason for needing abortion to be legal..

personally, i feel that if we are going to limit abortion, it should be more contract based. you know, something along the lines of the mother has 30 days from the time of discovering the pregnancy to decide to keep it or not.

yes, this is a rough idea and has not accounted for the trouble of defining the beginning of the 30 day period as of yet.

[Slay]

Not to mention how it can be officially tracked? Like if its been a month and a half and she comes in saying it's only 29 days.
-Slay

[Canadian Tire Money]

Not to mention how it can be officially tracked? Like if its been a month and a half and she comes in saying it's only 29 days.
-Slay


isn't that what i just said?

[rickster]

bump 4 awesome

[iPod]

Wtf don't you have anything better to do than read two-year-old threads oO?

[rickster]

i didn't read this thread

i just looked for the oldest thread, and bumped it

[socal]

how nice of you to do so

[iPod]

All hail the great rickster!

Did you know that people get banned for necromancy?

[Slay]

So cool to see 'Canadian Tire Money'
-Slay

EDIT: This thread is awesome because mentioning something in it summons the great Glurin! Rawr!

[ArPharazon]

Looking at a few of the last posts of this thread before the necro, I'm astonished that the same people have been discussing the exact same thing for 2 years.

Honestly, haven't we agreed on anything in that time? Have we just been arguing for the sake of arguing without even trying to convince each other? I know that's what forums are for... but... not even the arguments changed over the years. That's just...

... I have no words for what it is, actually.

[mulratt]

Well defining where life starts is subjective. Even if some scientific study tells us more aabout brain activity or the lack of, the definition of life is based on "potential" and that does not change.

Imagine wanting to resolve whether God exists or not.

I think euthanasia would be something easier to resolve.

[Slay]

Even if some scientific study tells us more aabout brain activity or the lack of, the definition of life is based on "potential" and that does not change.

No, it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
-Slay

[virgil cane]

Might as well post my thoughts on it, granted no one cares.

I think its a horrible thing but should remain legal, for many reasons, including the mothers health and that I dont think governments should be allowed to dictate to people what they can do with their reproductive system. (insert dirty joke here).

And if it comes down to forcing kids to have kids, I know where I stand on the issue. My best friend got his 16 year old girl friend pregnant this spring.

[SeeTeeeeM]

you know where you stand, but you didn't rweally make it clear to anyone else. did she keep the baby?

[Fiendz0r]

he means he did the abortion himself with the ol' nail-in-plank trick?

[virgil cane]

yeah she's keeping the kid, and not giving he/she up for adoption. I dont like it, and neither does my friendBTW