For or Against Abortion?

Personally, it's too much of a sensitive subject to decide.
Ending a life before it starts seems inhumane, yet
sometimes death can be better than suffering.

What do you think?

I'm basically against abortion, but I can understand that it might be a necessity in some cases. Mostly against.

Personally I am against it; however, I do not believe that the government can limit women from chosing.

I'm against abortion unless in the case of rape, incest, or medical reasons. Other then that I don't see any reason someone should end a life because they just simply don't want it.

Abortion is not "ending a life before it starts." It is the termination of the already living but totally non-sentient fetus or embryo. I believe abortion is very often the best alternative in dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and results in the least amount of suffering for everyone involved. For.

I'm against it in the sense that I think it should really only be used as a last resort, and that there are generally much better ways to adress teh situation (predominately preventative ones).

That being said, I'm for keeping it legal.

sensitive subject? lol

For. Doesn't matter how long into the pregnancy.

I'm against it unless it'll either A) Kill the mother... B) The mother was raped or C) The baby is a mad crazy mutant zombie (Like in Dawn of the Dead... YEAAAA)

Trust me.. I don't want to be a daddy anytime soon but i've decided if my girlfriend gets pregnant, theres no way in hell i'm getting it aborted. You might all say "Well thats what you think now, but wait til it happens."

Well it did happen.. But she lost it.. It sucks but in a way it was good because i'm not ready to be a Dad. But if it came down to it, I'd take the responsibility for it.

I change my answer. I"m against abortion, but FOR killing babies.

I'm totally psyched to go have some abortions.

Uh, yeah. The question is framed stupidly.

It's a difficult moral decision that I have no business making for other people, the decision must ultimately be left to the individuals to decide, especially in the earlier stages of pregnancy.

Same reasons? I don't see any in his post.

What kind of choice is pro-abortion? Is that advising pregnant women to abort?

"Pro-choice" is the correct term. However, sniper's definition is pretty funny.

I have no problem with ending life. I do it all the time, its all part of being alive.

Ending sentient life is a different matter altogether, the thought of ending a consciousness chills me to the bone. Undeveloped fetuses are not sentient life, they are not aware of their existence or surroundings. Young babies aren't for that matter either, humans don't become self-aware for a year or two as far as I know. That's not to say I'm okay with baby killing, but I'd certainly feel worse about a child's death than a baby's.

Or you could just go with a fleshlight. That way you don't have to worry about commitment! All you have to worry about is cleaning it.

I'd rather not get into a huge argument about this, since it's already been said and done plenty of times in the past, but I find it disturbing that people are still silly enough to consider a 6 week old ball of cells a "life". As if having an abortion (within a reasonable amount of time after conception - I don't remember the current law, 8 weeks maybe?) were no different than a woman carrying to full term, delivering a healthy baby, and then sitting on it to suffocate it and disposing of the body in a biohazard bag with the remainder of her placenta and afterbirth. An embryo and fetus are not the same thing as a baby. They are not alive, therefore there is no "life" to end.

If your own personal religious beliefs are capable of guilting you into becoming responsible for another person's life before your even capable of being responsible for your own and you feel forced to continue with the pregnancy, you can choose to do so. That's the beauty of pro-choice, everyone gets to choose what's right for them.

Let them abort in the early stages, but when the fetus is past a certain stage in development, abortion should be illegal. Seems a fair comprimise.

Trees are big, provide homes and food for a lot of life and help clean the air. I'd rather have a million abortions than cut down a single tree.

[quote="speedfreak"]Speedfreak disagrees: How do you pick the stage? Roll a friggin' dice?

Are you actually being serious, or did you just choose to be a complete idiot on purpose? If a fetus is viable it should not be aborted. An abortion in the early stages of pregnancy should be legal, as a fetus that doesnt have human characteristics and cannot survive outside the womb does not count as a "human", therefore it should not be considered murder to abort in that case.

I think it's a disgusting act for a "civilized" society support. Against, in any sense or form. Legally speaking, I don't think it should be an issue, either. There are way waaay too many facets of this argument.

Abortions get babies to *** quicker

For the record, I'm 100% FOR outlawing breast reduction surgery.

ok, your confusing things quite badly here. First off, condors are an endangered species, humans are not. I'm not trying to say that until some sort of alien species comes along to threaten the human population it should be ok to commit murder, so don't even try to put that twist on it. But that brings up point #2 - despite what your morals, parents, bible or wherever that thought came from says, an embryo is not alive and does not constitute a human life. If it is not alive, you are not commiting "murder". I don't understand why this concept is foreign to you. If you think its murderous because those cells had the potential to develop into a human life and now they no longer do, then by that same warped logic you should be holding funeral services everytime a woman has a menses since her egg failed to develop into a new life.

[quote]So basically you think the government should ALLOW people to do something that you feel is morally wrong?!
Yes. Because that which I feel is morally wrong, I do not participate in. It doesn't mean it should be outlawed and others prevented from doing it. Just because I have a moral objection to hunting doesn't mean it should be outlawed and others prevented from participating in it. I don't have to force everyone to be just like me in order to maintain my own beliefs.

[quote]those b00b cells aren't and can never BE a human being on their own. Apples and oranges, you see.
An embryo is the same in my eyes. At the early stages of development it is NOT a human being. Just because something has the potential to turn into something else doesn't mean it will and doesn't mean it is until it happens. Without pulling up journal articles and medical papers, I can't put a specific age or cellular growth requirement on it, so please don't ask me to do that. I'm just saying that in the early stages, I don't view it as a human life, therefore the removal of it is could not be considered murder.

I'm curious though about your views on IVF treatment and cryopreservation of embryos. Because by your reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong, those embryo's are alive and represent human life. Yet they're being kept frozen until someone decides it's the right time to have a baby. If it were possible to remove the unwanted fertilized egg without harm and save it for safe keeping later on, thereby aborting the pregnancy but maintaining the "life" of the embryo, would that be ok with you? Is it ok to freeze babies so long as they can be thawed out and reheated when you get home from work?

I'll answer that when you answer the legally withstanding reasoning behind me being unable to eat those condor eggs. They're not condors yet! They can BE an endangered species, yes. But if you agree to that then you are agreeing that "killing" something that has the potential TO BE a human being is still commiting the same act that I would be committing if I made a bigass omelette. That being murder. Answer me that and I'll answer your question.

The main argument I've heard for pro-abortion is "what if the mother was raped?". I don't think the relationship between the parents should decide whether a child lives or not. I place that in the same field as a mother wanting to abort he baby purely on the grounds of "well sometimes my husband disagree on film". Selfish.

If one believes that abortion equates to murder of a person, then one necessarily believes that millions of helpless people are being murdered every year. That's a full-fledged holocaust with government sanction and the complicity of many many citizens. If abortion truly was murder, resistance to this abortionist regime could then easily be justified as heroic, every bit as heroic as partisan violence in countries occupied by murderous regimes. You could kill 3 people (the right supreme court justices) and save millions of lives.

It's cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty to equate abortion to murder of a person simply to achieve a more effective rhetorical flourish, when clearly one doesn't truly believe it.

Abortion is certainly squicky and some people don't like it, but equating it to the murder of a full-fleged living person is absurd, not to mention degrading to real living people dying real deaths every day. It's a hysterical, hyperbolic claim utterly without merit.

The foetus doesn't have zero value (which is partly why it's a crime to cause a miscarriage against the mother's will) but the foetus, as mere potentiality rather than actual human life, doesn't get equal consideration to a post-birth baby and certainly not equal consideration to the mother hosting it. This is why womens rights trump them, and this is also why abortion is only legal in the earlier stages of pregnancy... the rights-balance between the foetus' potentiality and the mother's autonomy change as the foetus develops and becomes closer to a fully-fledged baby. It's common sense - what's okay at 2 months isn't okay at 8 months.

BJ, as both Vamp and I have said, it's illegal for you to make a condor omlette because the species is at risk of extinction. Its perfectly fine and legal for you to make scrambled eggs, eggs benedict, a southwestern omlette, and any other variety using normal chicken eggs - despite the fact that those chicken eggs have the potential to become chickens. Why? Because the species not on the verge of becoming extinct.

And again, I disagree with your use of the word "killing". The chicken/condor/human eggs are not "alive" in the state your referring to, so preventing the further development of the eggs could not be considered murder. The cells themself are alive, but 8 cells does not equal a human being. I can scratch my arm and rub off a handful of skin cells, but that doesn't mean I have Kyle Jr. sitting next to me in that pile of cells. Humans are complex organisms that take roughly 9 months to fully form and develop. It may not seem like that much, but its an awful long period of time. It would be quite ignorant to imply that an embryo in the early stages of development is equal or similar to a full-fledged living human.

I think Arwon summed it up best in his last paragraph.

Chicken eggs arent fertilised. Like a human female a chicken will still release eggs on regular basis. We eat the ones which lack cock interference. >_<

but it is NOT an endangered species. It's a bunch of cells that have the potential to BE an endangered species, but as of yet it is NOT one. Christ, how hard is that to figure out? Theoretically, I can't be held responsible for killing an endangered species if I kill a bunch of cells that aren't an endangered species!

doesnt that just go against what you beleive, that abortion should always be illegal?

Now I remember why we had stopped talking for so long a few years back :(

My cat's name is mittens.

I'm all for having less people in the world.

I'm all for the murdering of babies, not to mention abortion.

A Modest Proposal get.

I like how you fuckheads do such a bangup job of refuting my argument. I swear the only people with a grain of rhetoric prowess on here are Arwon and LoS. Arwon ****es me off because I can never best him in any argument, and the rest of you typically **** me off because you're too full of shit to see when someone else has a valid point, let alone make one yourself. Die in a fire.

just because you think your condor omlette analogy is a good one, doesn't make it true either, dear.

BJ, the conclusions you reach all depend on your initial premise. "All life is sacred" is one such first principle. "Suffering is inherently wrong" is another. "Individual freedom is the highest priority" is a third. If your initial premise is that a zygote ten seconds after conception has the same intrinsic value as a baby ten minutes away from being born, and the same need to have its rights considered ahead of the rights of its host mother, then I can do little but ridicule and question this initial premise and its consequences.

I (and many others) fundamentally reject the "all life is sacred" premise, and I think equating a new foetus to a post-birth baby is absurd, for the reasons I outlined. This is especially the case when you take it to its more extreme "all life is EQUALLY sacred" form, where you get hardcore zealots protesting a drug which prevents the implantation of a fertlized egg in the womb, because THAT FERTILISED EGG IS HUMAN LIFE.

The opposite premise is that a pre-birth baby has NO value, which I don't think is supportable either, because clearly it does have potential to become life, and because clearly, pre-birth foetuses do matter to people in both law and in culture.

To base policy solely on a single first-principle premise without considering the others is an extremely unbalanced way of constructing policy. Only a sizable minority in the US accepts the "all life is sacred, abortion is murder, pre-birth rights of foetus trump the individual autonomy of women" premise and its consequences for policy, and this is the ONLY ethical position from which banning abortion makes sense. Thus we don't do it. What we actually do, when setting policy, is try to balance various different mainstream positions, not just use one of them.

So what are we left with? Two "rights" and two things of value, which are both in fundamental conflict. On the one hand, the mother's rights over her own body, to make her own decisions free of arbitrary government control, the right to be treated as something other than a glorified incubator with legs, and on the other, the rights of the foetus to achieve its potentiality to life.

So I look at how policy actually works in practise. Lo and behold, the obvious point is that for the vast majority of countries and people, what is okay to do to a foetus at 1 month isn't okay for a nearly-born baby at 9 months. At some hazy point, zygote becomes foetus, and at another hazy point, foetus becomes baby. Medical science says it's in the second trimester (I think), folk medicine says it's at the time of quickening, Islam says it's 60 days after conception, Christianity is less specific... and so forth. Clearly, something changes in the equation of rights between conception and birth. I draw my reasoning from the way things actually work and from trying to balance fundamentally incompatible first-premises.

Personally I believe there should be a certain date to which you can abort the fetus. I understand if the fetus was like a couple months or so old or like 4 months or something, but when the fetus is up to 6 to 7 months, I don't think the fetus should be aborted.

Gigantic arguments on the internet don't only sway another's opinion and thus further your ultimate goal in life, it's the right thing to do.

Holy shit, no one's argued with my "screw life, only consciousness is important" stance. Am I immune?

I'm pro-choice. It's a gross process regardless of when or how it's done, but a woman should retain the rights of her own body. As long as she's the one creating and supporting the life inside of her, the baby shouldn't have any more rights than a malignant tumor.

Speedy: Consciousness could be debatable though, right? What about people in comas, or people with no motor skills? Is consciousness exclusive to things outside the womb?

If you're in a coma you aren't conscious. Killing someone in a coma would prevent their return to consciousness, which is totally different from destroying a totally dependant lifeform which isn't self-aware.

I don't see why someone with no motor skills would have anything to do with this debate, I'm not sure what you mean. Even people with motor neural syndrome have conscious thought.

[quote=keyartist;570597]Wow, coming for someone as smart as yourself I wouldn't ever think you would say the "ball of cells" to be unliving. Even someone like me knows that growing cells are living cells, so it is alive.

Honestly it's more so a growth of the woman. So you can't truly say it's alive. Really it's just another part of the woman's body until it's birth. Anyways if the mother were to die, then the fetus would too, so really the mother gives the fetus life. It is alive, but only with the mother.

you indulge it by merely saying "it's not the same thing"? Brilliant. Arwon, I'll get to you tomorrow.

I'm taking precautions not to get pregnant. If modern medicine screws up and I get pregnant, I have no qualms about getting an abortion. It was an accident. Whoops. I've got no time to take care of a baby, and I sure as hell don't want to change my life for something that never should've happened.

"Say your sister gets shot, Fate. That 'should'nt have happened' but you've got to live with it, right?"

Wrong. We're talking strictly abortions, so don't bother making parallel arguments.

I believe a person should be given a wonderful life when they are brought into the world. If a fourteen-year-old girl is not capable of giving this child a proper life, she shouldn't have it; it doesn't matter if she had consensual sex or if she was raped. While I do not like the idea of a woman getting multiple abortions, it is better she not have a child in the long run... She may just be an unsuitable parent and the child is better off not being born. I would suggest birth control to avoid going through multiple abortions, but that would be her choice to make as well.

"Fate, you idiot. Are you saying that death is a better alternative to life?"

No. I do not see a fetus as living. The five-month mark sounds about right when it comes to what's really "alive".

You have no idea how good someones life can be before they are born. Saying their life will be awful because they may be raised in a faimily which may not no be the most financially stable is stupid.

Bebop, it takes much more than just financial stability in order to raise a child. The whole idea to parenting is to pass along your wisdom and knowledge to your children to help nurture them into "good model citizens." I don't see how a 14yr old, who is still a child herself, would be capable of taking on such an important responsibility when her judgement is obviously flawed if she wound up in that predicament to begin with.

Abortion should not be used as an alternative to birth control. But I don't see the value in exacerbating an already bad situation by forcing a woman to bring a new life into the world, as if it were some sort of punishment for having poor judgement.

Keytard - please don't try and teach me basic biology. I know all about apoptosis and the cell cycle without your help. I was merely pointing out that a blastula should not be treated and considered the same as a living child. Just because those 8 individual cells are alive and growing, it does not mean they are comprable to a living human organism.

Nes Queen, Fate just made it sound as if you can only raise a child if you can afford it which makes it sound like people of a poor background shouldnt be allowed to reproduce.
Also there have been countless success stories of teen parents and their children. The age of a parent doesnt mean they will be a good parent. I've read loads of stories of teen parents raising healthy babies and 30 year old parents raping their kids.
Also, you assume a 14 year old can only get preggers from being stupid. A 14 year old could still use a condom but condoms arent 100% safe. Also the context in which a mother became pregent shouldnt determine whether that pregnancy should continue.
And how many full grown financially stable parents still get knocked up bleeding drunk in an alley? Exactly.
A parent could be mature, old enough, lots of life experience with lots of money and still be an awful parent just like how a loving 16 year old who left school early can raise her kids and love them dearly. At the end of the day you're assuming a child would have a bad life based on someone else's life which is stupid. We could look at the state of your parents before you were born and say that you wouldnt have a good life and therefore should have been aborted. How truly in love or financially secure were your folks before you shot out of your dad's sack? And of the course the only real person who would know if Nes Queen has a good life is Nes Queen.

Perhaps I should've answered that question, too, so I'll reiterate a chunk that NES Queen said.

It takes more than money to raise a kid. By this, it doesn't automatically mean maturity of the adult having the baby. It includes support, some form of stability, and tons of effort. It doesn't matter if you have all the stability in the world so long as you can emotionally feed your child. ...And even if you couldn't give your child the emotion he needed, at least financially he is set. It takes one or the other, but lacking both is just sick.

Side note: Being drunk in an alley with a pocket full of cash doesn't sound too mature, now does it?

No-one know how good a parent they will be until they are parenting. You won't know you don't like a food if you don't try it. And still, adoption over abortion. I honeslty can't think of any valid reason to get an abortion. If you're selfish admit it. Don't make crap excuses like ""well I don't have the money, "he doesnt have a father", "Im too young/old to have kids". They dont hold up at all.

Psh, I could raise a kid if I wanted to. I have well over enough time and combined income with the would-be father to raise one. I readily admitted that I'm taking precautions to not have children, so if something goes wrong I have no problem with an abortion. Risking having an emotional attachment? No way. I don't feel it's murder.

And the reason you'd get an abortion is what exactly?

Stem cell research. Sucking fetus blood is quite a hobby of mine.

I'd get an abortion because I obviously didn't want to have a baby in the first place. I'm glad we live in an age where I don't have to practice abstinence to avoid having children. I take birth control so I expect my births to be controlled. I'm too emotional so tossing a baby to an adoption clinic once I have it is a no-go. I care too much about where my career is headed to drop it all for a kid. I don't want it, so I won't have it. If modern medicine fails, well... That's why there's abortion.

I just cant get my head round that. I dont understand how you think that way. But there you go.

When is it too late for a pregnancy to be aborted? What would you say?

Out of curioisty if I stab a pregnent woman and kill the baby is that murder or abortion?

You probably wouldn't understand. I personally don't like the idea of being fat and emotional.

And as I said before, the five-month mark sounds about right. Seeing as how that's the legal limit for abortion, it should also be applied to murder statutes.

5 months? Sweet Mary thats far too late for my liking.

If 5 months why not 5 and a half or 6 months?

I've never understood why a bunch olf old, whiney white guys up on Capitol Hill are trying to tell countless numbers of women what to do with not only 9 months of their lives (no aborting means staying pregnant obviously) but potentially what to do with the next 18 years of their lives as well.

I ask all men here to consider how it would suck *** having another human life just dumped on you for the next 18 years of your life. Wouldn't that suck? Wouldn't it cramp your style? What if the mom just took off into the night? What about your plans - probably all ruined, right?

I personally don't like abortion, especially late-term abortion, but you must realize that by protecting the rights of a clump of cells you're essentially taking away the rights of American women because being forced to carry to birth is going to significantly impact the mothers life. And you can't blame it on the mother's irresponsibility, either; in my opinion the father is at just as much fault and I believe if there was legislation that would impact both mom and dad, there would be a lot more support for abortion.

If I got a girl pregnent I'd be a dad. Yeh unexpected birth sucks. Guess what, life sucks. Deal with it. Don't be a pussy. Girls aborting their kids **** me off as much as the fathers running away from their responability. And for all those people saying crap like "I cant have a kid now ive got a life plan to follow" I just laugh. Life plan? Ha ha how pathetic. You can plan your life as much as you want and it wont follow. You can plan to finish Uni top of your class and straight away get a high paid job or you can plan to meet the love of your life and settle down at 30 in a nice house in the suburbs but Im sorry to tell you it wont happen. One way or another, whether drastically or not, your "life plan" isnt going to succeed so dropping a kid on the grounds of it being unexpected is redundant considering everything in ****ing life is unexpected.

In America, we have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You can argue that in favor of the unborn kid, or in the favor of the would-be parents. If you're arguing in favor of the parents, then it means that being forced to have a kid infringes upon these idyllic notions, and whether it would truely mess up your life or not doesn't matter. What matters is that it might, and being free, you should have the option to abort the kid to continue to pursue your percieved happiness. Obviously, if you're against abortion, you argue that the unborn child has rights, even if it is just a clump of cells basically.

I personally think both are right. There's a point when the baby can be born prematurely and live. At that point, I would make sure the child has rights and that abortion (except in life-threatening situations) would be illegal. At the same time, when it's a clump of cells, the mother has the right to abort it.

I dunno, Bebop, but my life plan is more like "finish school, get a job, save money". It's not unrealistic by any means. A kid would destroy that.

5 months seems way too long to me. 90% of abortions are performed within the first trimester (14 weeks).

This site has some nice pictures and explanations of when certain body systems begin to start functioning. Gives you a better idea of exactly how humanoid the fetus truly is. Until the fetus is developed enough to be able to live on its own, meaning its major organ systems are developed, intact, and working, it can't be considered a baby in my eyes. Based on what I've seen in the NICU, doctors typically don't consider a fetus viable until after 26 weeks, and even then the child would spent it's first 1-2yrs of life at the hospital with machines keeping it alive.

[URL="http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php"]http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php[/URL]

A kid would slow it down for many years. That's enough of a reason for me not to have it, plain and simple. Having it afterwards is just a matter on if I care to have a kid-- which I most likely won't since I'm getting a pet to release maternal feelings.

Also, on another note, I don't consider the baby a "baby" unless, like NES Queen mentioned, the major organs are able to function properly (even with the help of machines).

"Get a job" is the most vague life plan you can get Vamp. Thats how its vague.

I'm pretty sure the plan she's formulated in her head is a bit less vague. It probably ties in with gaming, thus school, and a child will most likely drop her grades. Good luck getting a great job with ****ty grades!

Babies cant take tests. They are to young. If you fail to study for a test it's your fault.

I wouldnt want to have a kid yet. But if I am put in a situation where I do get a kid pregnent I figure the best course of action would be to have that child.

My main problem with people who are pro-abortion is that they draw a line between when a pregnency is 'alive' and when they are not. Whether this is 5 months on the dot or whatever it means 1 millisecond before that thing (for the sake of argument) is not alive, the next it is. I dont understand how people can think that. How people can effectivly decide with the click of fingers when a baby in the wom can and cannot be confirmed as alive.

Im afraid its the truth. When you take an examination its in your name. You cant scribble "lol I have a baby". Education may work that way in Canada but in the real world babies cant sit examinations. Christ, thats just sick.

No, no, it's just that I forgot you tend to make really stupid points from time to time. Took me by surprise.

If you took that serously at all then I hope you dont have children.

Im not missing a factor. I know some people would rather get an abortion. We are posting in an abortion thread you know?

I don't see a problem with it! Well, except for the unemployed one, at least they COULD still get a job and be of some use of society.

Yeah.


And I'd say that homeless people and the unemployed have their own place in society. But the mentally retarded should DIE.

Homeless people exist for one reason and one reason only: to scare the **** out of the middle class and consequently keep them showing up at their jobs.

The mentally retarded should live. They are mostly harmless and can be an endless source of amusement.

Personally I am against it, but I believe that a woman has the right to choose for herself.

That kind of contradicts itself really. "Im against abortion but if mothers want to get one, its cool with me."

Not really. You can be against something on a personal level, but still understand that an individual has a right to choose for themselves.

Just one side note: For those that are using the "I can do what I want with my body" argument for abortion, I sure as hell hope you support the right to suicide and ALL drug rights as well. It's their body, their choice too, right?

Exactly. People should also have the right to base-jump, drink paint, and maybe even smoke in public places (That one get dodgy becauseof third party harm, "the right to swing your fist ends at my face" and all that).

I'm pretty certain most pregnancies that women want aborted aren't intentional, where as drug use and suicide are. You should have the freedom to get rid of something that you never wanted, like the flu or crabs.

I think we should have the freedom to get rid of Iris.

Good thing people generally don't listen to any one who's physically attracted to woodland creatures.

im for abortion because if a woman dosent want the child she shold be allowed t oabort the pregnecy and the fetus that get aborted gets sent to a stem-cell research plus it help with money just think if a woman have the child and give it up for adoption that is a max of 18 year that tax payer aer paying for the child and also it could destroy the mother's life so i see abortion as actually a good thing.

A mother Was accused murder by stabbing her babies bodie right after it comes out. Murder? yes. Now what is it when a doctor puts a clamp on the babies head and squeezes its brains out just before it comes out.[partial birth abbortion] Murder? yes,I certainly think so and the government finally thinks so too but not that dumb Hillary Clinton.Hillary thinks that it is a outrage and that you should be able to clap a babies head, SHE IS SICK>> ABBORTION IS WRONG>YOU ARE KILLING A HUMAN BEING>so if you are for all that stuff,you have something wrong in your head.

Thankyou.

In a way I'm pro-choice and pro-life when it comes to abortion. I'm pro-choice because I'm not a fourteen-year-old incest victim who was impregnated by her father, or a women who's going to die if the pregnacy continues, or a rape victem, or a teenager who's made a mistake. I belive that we should have choices, but I also see that it's a life. That your killing a child, a living person. Especially once it's big enough to live outside of the womb.

if you open your legs then you should understand what comes from it. JR. High health class teaches us how to have a baby. If your not in a situation where you could handle a child then don't have sex you ****in idiot. Your commiting murder so that you can have a night of good fun. If you get an abortion then you should die and go to hell you murdering fool.

ONE WORD: ADOPTION

At least your not killing anyone. There are plenty of people who cant have kids and would love to raise a child and be a good human being. As for the girls that cant keep there pants on and take responsibility for the results, may *** NOT have mercy on your soul.

I heard on the Mancow show about a baby that lived after only being 26 weeks (I think, it may be less) into term, it's legal in almost every state to get an abortion at that stage.


SORRY RAPTOR, DIDNT FULLY READ THE END OF THAT, GOT DISGUSTED HALF WAY THRU, I SHALL RE-REP YOU WHEN I CAN.

***. America is f*cked.

You poor ba*tards.

Abortions send babies to *** faster :)

That happened some years ago when Bush was elected

[quote=Elric;589282]
ONE WORD: ADOPTION

At least your not killing anyone. There are plenty of people who cant have kids and would love to raise a child and be a good human being. As for the girls that cant keep there pants on and take responsibility for the results, may *** NOT have mercy on your soul.

OK, but you have to think how many kids are in an adoption agency. Probably thousands around the world. Your just adding to that, and the possibilities of a child be adopted is slim. Sure some kids do get adopted, but not all can.

[quote=Elric;589756]If you look up a couple posts to Reve's, I mention the rape victims. I do understand there are situations like that and i beleive you should have to go through the court system and if the court says OK, you got raped, you can have an abortion. But, understand, you people see it as your life being ruined, what about the human inside you that never even got a chance.
If you had children you would understand.

That's just dumb. If a woman was raped she should not have to face the courts to abort a child from some man she was raped by. I remember saying a few pages back that the child is more so a growth of the mother rather then a living thing. The fetus is more so a living part of the mother, nothing else until birth. But of course people may think it's a living human being. But seriously if I was a woman, and I was raped, I would at all costs try to abort the child if one was conceived.

[quote=Elric;589854]That was my point, i said they should be an exception. I just dont think you should be able to go get drunk and decide to have sex and then go the next week to an abortion clinic and say well, I just made a mistake. If you had children you would have a different outlook on EVERYTHING. It's no longer about yourself having a good time. My baby is the greatest thing in my life and there is nothing in this world that could ever bring me more joy than my daughter. You cant seriously think of a child just as a burden on your life. Until you have one for yourself, you will never understand.

Honestly that's when a woman should do it. If she conceived a baby during that time frame, then she should be allowed to abort the child. The child would not even be considered living yet since it has no living organs and such. A week is not much, so really I think it would be fine to stop the pregnancy.

I think everyone should mind their own business and make a choice when they are presented with the situation instead of commenting on hypotheticals. Screw this.

I think I can safely say, despite my having a penis, that if I got ****ed against my will and was carrying my attacker's baby, I'd want nothing to do with the attacker and thus, the baby.

Think about the situation: You got ****ed up, literally. You have this kid, but the kid's father is a disgusting, hostile, and sick **** who can only have sex by forcing himself on women. That kid is the spawn of that man. Perhaps adoption is an actual possibility, but I think most raped women feel a bit hostile towards the man that physically abused them.

Juuust a thought.

[quote=Elric;589854]You cant seriously think of a child just as a burden on your life.

Tell that to those kids up for adoption. Or that 15 year old girl who got raped.

This, among almost everything in life, is not a black and white situation. Not every birth is one of love and caring. Your view is that of a loving father, but loving fathers and mothers do not make up the entire parenting population.

I agree with Fate. It's not something that you can simply persuade some one into thinking anything different. Everyone's going to have different thoughts and emotions when they're presented with the option. They have to make their own decision.

However, leaving unplanned parents with a single option is completely wrong in my opinion, and outlawing abortion is just going to force parenthood on unprepared people.

Regarding the qualifications for an abortion, I think it should be open to anyone who wants it. To be honest, I don't actually like the idea of people getting abortions due to circumstances that they have control over, but I think it's still the most logical and fair solution. Besides, stem cell research has the potential to do wonderful things.

I'm against stem cell research because I saw a South Park episode where Christopher Reeves sucked... things out of babies in order to walk again. :(

So your telling me when i got to see my baby on the ultrasound for the first time she wasnt human. If she would have died before she was born I should shrug it off because she wasnt human.

Frankly I shouldnt be arguing with you because of the way you feel. If you dont have children you simply cannot fathom how much love you feel from that child. When i got to see her on the ultrasound I could see her little fingers and everything, from that moment she was a living breathing human being to me and she was the only thing that mattered to me. I created that little girl and I wanted to devote my everything to taking care of her.
So, you cant tell me when my baby was considered human, I've felt it.

So I have to appoligize to whomever I may have offended. One day you will understand how I feel.

[quote=higbvuyb;590311]But, it's not a 'person' until it's developped to a certain point. it's jsut a bunch of cells, with no mind/brain.

So, if you want an abortion, make the decision as quickly as possible. Abortions should be illegal after a certain point of development.

I agree, We should allow abortion, but only in a certain time frame. If the child is to much developed (possibly 5 or 6 months I'm guessing) then an abortion should be denied.

[quote=Elric;590893]Frankly I shouldnt be arguing with you because of the way you feel. If you dont have children you simply cannot fathom how much love you feel from that child. When i got to see her on the ultrasound I could see her little fingers and everything, from that moment she was a living breathing human being to me and she was the only thing that mattered to me. I created that little girl and I wanted to devote my everything to taking care of her.
So, you cant tell me when my baby was considered human, I've felt it.

I would feel the same way if it were my kid. I would be all giddy that I made a child and that I'm a father. It's just that people should be able to choose to some extent. If the child was conceived between two lovers then I believe they have the right to choose. It should not only be the mothers choosing, but also the fathers.

Babies have survived after 5-6 months. As a matter of fact, they start to develop the same stuff you have around 2 months. It's not that I dont want women to have a choice, I just dont think they should be able to act irresponsibly and take it out on the child that never got a chance. America as whole needs to act more responsibly.

Either way it's legal and if you want to go get drunk and have a big *** train ran on you every weekend and then go check into your freindly neighborhood abortion clinic and have the baby's head popped off you can. WELCOME TO AMERICA

... Yes, because that's how they perform abortions. They have a "big *** train ran on you every weekend."

Listen, I think it's pretty clear how much you care for your daughter. Using basic empathy, one person can easily realize the amount of love you have for that kid of yours. But your situation is entirely different from that of a rape victim's or someone who just was stupid and got knocked up. Unless you're either a rapist or a moron who can't grasp the concept of a condom.

Personally, I'm indifferent to the subject. Either way, it doesn't affect me, therefore I really don't care. I do believe that Americans should have the most amount of free will as possible, yet at the same time, killing an unborn fetus provides an easy solution as well as further progression into stem cell research. Of course, there's also that one other minor thing about murder but I have no moral obligations that sway me either way on that front.

Point being: We can most certainly place ourselves in your position, Elric. I, personally, want to have kids one day. But the way I want to have them isn't going to be through my fumbling with a condom and ultimately tossing it because it "got in my way," or by raping someone (ew... :( ). I think that having a child should only be done one way, and that way is through planning, care, and preparation.

Let me finish this post by asking you this, Elric:

What if some ******* raped your wife(?) and that wasn't your kid at all. It was some bastard's who can only get pussy by rape, and who can't be tracked down. Your wife is upset and obviously disgusted by the situation and most likely would want the thing killed, due to the nature of its conceiving. What would you want, in that case? Would you really be able to father the child of the man who raped your wife? Maybe you could, pending on your personality and other 'x' factors, but think about how hard a decision that'd be for the rest of humanity.

Despite how bad of a solution to end this discussion is, Fate's right. You can't really decide until you're in that situation.

I didnt say thats how they perform abortions, I said thats how irresponsible people end up in situations where they need abortions. How many times have I said that I can understand that situation. LISTEN, MY POINT AND ONLY POINT IS IT SHOULDNT BE SO EASY TO THROW LIFE AWAY. I cant spell it out any clearer for you. I understand there are some situations where it would be the best thing. I can understand where you are coming from, honestly. I know someone personnaly who has had an abortion, i used to think it was a choice that every woman should have. But, in the end it leads to some women (not every woman mind you) thinking they can be a slut and it's ok because I can have an abortion.

Ok, I can agree with you that rape victims and a few other cases it would be considered the "right" thing, but, you have to agree it's not right for a woman to make mistake after mistake and have a doctor erase the "problem". Please dont take my point of view the wrong way.

[quote=Elric;591117]I didnt say thats how they perform abortions, I said thats how irresponsible people end up in situations where they need abortions. How many times have I said that I can understand that situation. LISTEN, MY POINT AND ONLY POINT IS IT SHOULDNT BE SO EASY TO THROW LIFE AWAY. I cant spell it out any clearer for you. I understand there are some situations where it would be the best thing. I can understand where you are coming from, honestly. I know someone personnaly who has had an abortion, i used to think it was a choice that every woman should have. But, in the end it leads to some women (not every woman mind you) thinking they can be a slut and it's ok because I can have an abortion.

Ok, I can agree with you that rape victims and a few other cases it would be considered the "right" thing, but, you have to agree it's not right for a woman to make mistake after mistake and have a doctor erase the "problem". Please dont take my point of view the wrong way.

People get run over by trains when they need abortions...? What in the **** is wrong with you?

You think women want abortions now? That's beyond stupid. Sure, abortion is an 'easy way out,' but I doubt that any woman will go out to get ****ed up just so she can have an abortion. If any woman was stupid enough to not use protection before having sex, then if abortion were illegal I'm 99% sure she'd try some alternate method for killing the kid. And most likely, this method is not going to be very safe.

You're assuming that women will go out, repeatedly and willingly, and get knocked up for the sake of having an abortion. Abortion should be made clear that it is the 'break glass in case of emergency' option. Any woman, or hell, anyone who thinks that you can simply get an abortion at every turn is a complete moron who doesn't even deserve the ability to create offspring.

Abortions aren't the most enjoyable procedures, Elric. Women usually don't just go have unprotected sex on a daily basis because it feels better and then go get an abortion every week. It doesn't work like that and it's certainly not such a huge concern that should effect whether or not abortion is legal.

Rat mothers (among many others) eat their babies if they feel they cannot look after them, or don't want to. If killing an already-born baby is perfectly ethical in the rat kingdom I don't see why preventing a human baby from being born is unethical in ours. It is natural to not want children, it is not murder because they are not human.

I think it's unethical not to eat aborted babies.

FUNNEST INDEED!!!

Eating a dead fetus for stem cell research gives you super powers.

I think Elric may be under the impression that abortions are not only easy decisions, but cheap and simple to do. They aren't.

They also hurt!

(cramps)

i'm against abortion ! 13 years ago my mom wanted to abort, but she didnt because a church lady was at the hospital right when my mom was going to abort ... the lady told her not to... and she got through to my mom..
i'm glad my mom didnt because that baby was my kid brother....
still, imagine if that was me or you ...we wouldnt be here enjoying the things we do because we got aborted... now we didnt have any money but we came through. and were doin good now . were all pretty happy with each other... I say no to abortion...

This argument is simple Elric. The Government has no right to impede on our personal decisions about our own personal bodies. We give them the right to protect us from others, to protect us from people who would force their opinions onto us, but not the right to tell us what is right from wrong or what we can do with ourselves. That is our own personal duty to ourselves, and no matter what, no one can tell us what that is. The only time the government has the true ability to force its own judgement on someone, is when that person is a danger to others, or others and themselves.

In other words, the government has no right to impede on another's free will, and neither do you. You can tell us you don't think it is right, which is fine. But no matter what, it is not your choice to make for another person.

Elric, no one is telling you that your daughter should have been aborted. So i'm genuinely confused as to why you keep taking this so personally. The choice that you and your daughters mother made was the right choice for you guys. That same choice is not the right choice for many other people. The beauty of being pro-choice is everyone gets to pick what is the best option for them. You personally have not been in the same situation as women who have decided to get an abortion (no uterus), so you have no right to judge and criticize them for their choice. Yes, there are some uneducated women out there who use abortion as a form of birth control, however that is the exception rather than the norm and most pro-choice people do not advocate such an abuse of the system.

Advocates of pro-life continually rant about how killing babies is wrong. However, most pro-choice people tend to not view the developing embryo as an actual human life until much further along in the pregnancy. That's the whole problem here, there's a huge grey area about at what point the ball of cells becomes a genuine human "life". If your ultra conservative or religious, you tend to think that at the time of conception its a genuine life and equivalent to an actual baby living outside the womb. Science-minded people (such as myself) do not.

When you saw your daughters hand on the ultrasound, how far along in the pregnancy was the baby's mother? Would you have felt the same strong emotional attachment to your daughter if you had seen the ultrasound at only 2 weeks gestation where there was nothing to even see since the size was so small and there was no recognizable development yet?

So how is it different, yet again, that somehow it's (legally)wrong for me to eat a cluster of protein a-la condor omelette, but not (illegal) to kill a cluster of cells that are a developing human fetus? Just wondering since you never clarified before and it seems you've finally slowly shambled to that point that I was trying to show in my original argument that you so intelligently deemed as stupid?

Arwon and Lunairetic make me feel alittle better about the VGC community. Instead of coming back at me with, "I like to eat dead babies", they act like a normal human being and give you something to actually think about. Would you people talk to each other in the real world like that. If you just walked up to somebody and said I eat dead fetus, what in the hell would you expect them to do. Hell most people would probably call the cops on you because frankly, thats creepy.

Now to my point, I can 100% see it from your point of view. It would be a bunch of bs to have the government impede. I'm not sayin I'm the guy with the answer, but, I'm sure somebody out there has a better idea than the way we do it now. Your point of view is a viable one, I just simply disagree with the way it's done.

Elric: I responded to your posts and I did it both politely and coherently. You don't honestly think that 1 simple joke debunks multiple relevant paragraphs, do you?

Like NES Queen said, you're acting very victimized and offended eventhough no one's trying to take away the love you have for your daughter. I'm honestly not seeing all the incoherent, rude, and unintelligent posts that you've claimed to have been made.

Philsdad: I think Fate's just saying that you can't at all decide which alternative is preferred for a certain individual faced with the situation. Not that hypothetical situations are a bad idea, but that you can't decide for some one else because you aren't going to share the same exact feelings and emotions. I don't think she was saying that the amount of alternatives available should at all be reduced.

If that one post is as disgusting and completley retarded as the one you posted then, yes, it cancels everything I will ever here you say. Everything you ever post will be completley irrelivant to me because I beleive you are inhumane and revulting.

I told 'Elric' that he didn't deserve his daughter...?

[quote=Elric;591311]Your putting words in my mouth it you are crossing the line to tell me I don't deserve my daughter. I never said it was the easiest thing in the world, but, it's not exactly inexcessable. I told you I can understand your side, I don't throw a **** fit and say things like that. If you can't handle conversation like an adult then don't chime in. I didnt say they did it because they WANTED an abortion. I said they did dumb things because in the back of there mind they have a scapegoat. I didnt say every woman was like that. Don't be so bull headed and ignorant to take my words to and extreme.

Like an 'adult?' What in the **** is wrong with you? Everyone in this thread has agreed that you are taking this matter personally for no reason at all. You're talking as if you've heard any or all of us together, in one voice, saying "**** kids. Elric's kid should have been aborted." Truth is, no one's said anything remotely to that. Your ability to understand is terrible.

I honestly do not think that you are at all qualified to engage in any debate, let alone one regarding this topic. You're letting your emotions get in the way of any rational thought and you are the one putting words in peoples' mouths. Anything mentioning the consumption of babies has been a total joke, and because you really do not understand this you really should just let this topic go.

On top of all that, I'm having a very difficult time even understanding the majority of your posts. To be quite honest, I think you're a ****ing idiot.

Yurr de 1 n a rntng rving mes, tats the mst cnsorsip I eber saw in a pst. newy, I dn argu wt u, re tally8 al u wnt. doo u undrrstnd?

For the record, I know different opinions are important. That's not the issue. Most of the people here at VGC don't have children and have never been faced with abortion. Elric, however, does have a kid and thinks that because he does he automatically is granted wisdom on the subject of abortion. Whatever, bro. I know how I am and I know I would have no problem with an abortion-- I'd just get a headache after all the *****ing I'd be doing about how much it costs.

Speedfreak agrees: It's irritating that your posts are the only ones I can be bothered to read in this thread just because they're blue.

I know, it's like a soothing shade of blue. Despite how I'm color blind, I still find it soothing.

Hm... I also like women. Just thought I'd put that out there.

[quote=Elric;591554]Yurr de 1 n a rntng rving mes, tats the mst cnsorsip I eber saw in a pst. newy, I dn argu wt u, re tally8 al u wnt. doo u undrrstnd?

Oh shut up.

Edit: Jesus christ, I ****ed up my post. I editted the wrong part so that my entire post no longer made sense.

Yeah, now he's just being a jackhole.

and lol at the blue thing

what ever floats your boat

[quote=Elric;591790]If you see eating dead babies as a joke then you need to find a new word to end your sentence with. My guess is Christ wouldnt find it very humorous.
Instead of debating abortion it has turned into arguing with me. If everyone agreed with you, there would be no need for a **** forum. Does it make you feel cooler to get in a big mass and ALL reply to me. Simply because I have the nuts to stand up for what I beleive instead of being like everybody else. But hey, I hope you all have fun sharing the same brain.

I don't see how you take it so seriously. It's only the interwebs.

[quote=Elric;591790]If you see eating dead babies as a joke then you need to find a new word to end your sentence with. My guess is Christ wouldnt find it very humorous.
Instead of debating abortion it has turned into arguing with me. If everyone agreed with you, there would be no need for a **** forum. Does it make you feel cooler to get in a big mass and ALL reply to me. Simply because I have the nuts to stand up for what I beleive instead of being like everybody else. But hey, I hope you all have fun sharing the same brain.

You're a ****ing moron. We don't have the same opinion of the topic, hence why this thread exists. Look at the ****ing title, for christ's sake, idiot.

You stood up for your belief. That's excellent. I love it when people do that. We're not saying you're wrong or right, we're calling you a total idiot because of the way you're trying to prove that your logic is correct and your general immature and childish personality.

There's no place for you here. You're an over-sensitive lunatic who really has no way to logically counter anything.

But they're not life yet. Egg's not a condor, foetus is not a baby. My reasoning and explanation doesn't hinge on there being individual "life" involved here. The reason you can't eat a condor egg is because the genetic material is specifically valuable, not to condors, but to science, to the environment, and to us as a species. This is very simple, and doesn't rely on the egg being an autonomous life which must be protected purely for its own sake. It carries a sort of value entirely removed from its "right to condor life" or somesuch.

The scientific and ecological value of all things condor makes it totally different to the abortion debate (and actually, now that I think about it, it would be entirely ethically consistant to, from a deep green perspective, want condor eggs protected but advocate abortion for population control reasons). It's a major collective social good (perpetuating condors) versus a minor micro-level liberty (eating eggs) as opposed to a clash between two micro-level individual rights (foetus and mother) which are fundamentally in conflict and don't have any broader ramifications.

You're using very spurious reasoning here, applying ONE aspect (the lack of equivalence between humans and foetuses) of an ethical system and acting like it's the only value anyone has, applying it to a totally different situation to try to make a point despite how poor the analogy is. It's a similar fallacy to people going HOW KEN YOU BE AGIN THE DEATH PENALTY BUT FOR ABORTION YOU HIPOCRIT... Makes the mistake of assuming everyone thinks a foetus is equal to a human life and that everyone opposes the death penalty for "all life is sacred" reasons, but just because two views are incompatible from the point of view of one aspect of one ethical system, doesn't mean they're inconsistant.

"It will be a condor whose life is valuable" is a very different thing than "it has rare and needed genetic material". Condors don't have rights, condors have utility to us. So do condor eggs. The condor isn't any more intrinsically valuable than a chicken, except that there's less of them and we've realised that, as a society, we need to minimise how much we f*ck nature up. We, as humans, place very different values on different animals. Condors != chickens, condor genetic material is important and killing a condor violates a fairly major collective human value--protecting the environment as much as is reasonable. But if we could make more condors by smashing the egg and using it for cloning, we'd do it.

This line of reasoning for protecting condor eggs doesn't place any stock in its "right to life" or its direct equivalence to a post-hatch condor (condor eggs are actually more valuable than infertile condors, something you can't say of humans). There's no real rights-clash, like there is between mothers' sexual and bodily autonomy and individual liberty, and the potential humanity and therefore intrinsic value of a decidedly not-yet-human entity whose existence depends utterly on a fully-formed autonomous human.

I've gone through the "shifting rights balance due to growing human potentiality" argument before, I won't repeat it here. But with condors, since there's no concievable rights clash, the ecological and scientific value to humans of all things condor-related wins out fairly absolutely.

As for the libertarianism thing... I'm not a libertarian, I recognise social goods like "people not starving in poverty" and "protecting the environment" as collective values which trumps (or at least competes with) individual liberty.

Oh for the love of ***, are we back to the condor line of logic?

Also:

Hey V', do ya' think they make dead babies in a low cal-fat variety?

I feel sorry for the children I pray you never have.

Obviously I can't get through, it's story time!

The doctor walked into the lab and set a steel pan on the table. "Got you some good specimens," he said. "Twins." The technician looked down at a pair of perfectly formed 24-week-old fetuses moving and gasping for air. Except for a few nicks from the surgical tongs that had pulled them out, they seemed uninjured. "There's something wrong here," the technician stammered. "They are moving. I don't do this. That's not in my contract." She watched the doctor take a bottle of sterile water and fill the pan until the water ran up over the babies' mouths and noses. Then she left the room. "I would not watch those fetuses moving," she recalls. "That's when I decided it was wrong."

"These researchers don't want to see the whole baby. That would freak them out. They think they're about higher medicine that is serving a cause

The bible isn't a valid form of evidence. Neither is an anecdote from a highly biased pro-life website.

The photos, however, do trouble my beliefs slightly. Though I have reason to doubt that you're entirely honest about what stage in development they were taken.

Honestly, I watched my baby grow through ultrasound pictures and these are accurate.

Seriously, I understand I took things a little seriously and I appoligize. I just have strong feelings on the subject. I've seen both sides of the topic. My own sister has been through 2 abortions her self. I used to think it was a good thing. But, the same girl wishes everyday she could take it back. Now I understand everyone has different situations and someone else may completley differ from her.

I also understand that alot of people see the bible as a big fairytale. But, before everyone flips out and starts bashing the bible, I want everyone to know I'm not trying to start a ranting raving arguement. Some people still beleive. So you can tell me to chill out, but tell yourself the same thing.

When I done an image search for ten week old fetuses, I got a bunch of pictures, mostly like this:

[IMG]http://www.aarogya.com/Conditions/specialties/gynec/images/week8.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.pregnancy.org/images/articles/ten_weeks125.jpg[/IMG]


Which are a notably large stretch from what your images propose. While I'm no expert on fetal development, I can't imagine such a vast difference between your images and the ones I found online.

As for the bible, true or not, you can't use it to push your views on abortion.

Well as long as we're using cheap emotionalism and shocking images, [url=http://asylumeclectica.com/asylum/malady/archives/harlequin.htm]WHERE'S YOUR *** NOW[/url].

He can use it, seeing as it is his view. It just makes me even less inclined to agree.

I simply classify anything that 'Elric' says as bull****.

My only question; why wasn't there a "Pro-choice" option in the polls? A woman's body is a woman's body to do whatever she feels has to be done to survive. Even if it's prostitution..

It greatly depends for me.


If somethings wrong, way too young, or rape cases.
In those cases I definitely think abortion should be an option.

If you're just too **** lax not to use some rubber or pills, then no.
It's obviously your mistake then.

[quote=ExoXile;592087]If you're just too **** lax not to use some rubber or pills, then no.
It's obviously your mistake then.

I always use a rubber, bag it before you tag it. Never know what kind of strange **** you could bump into..

haha, oh wow. quoted the bible. awesome.

... "bag it before you tag it"...?

Why, exactly, is human life important again? I specify human life because humans clearly don't give a crap about any other form of life. We eat feilds and feilds of grain and vegetables, cut down entire forests to make houses and have efficient slaughter houses to process our meat. Not to motion the trillions upon trillions of germs we kill every day. Life, as a matter of fact, is not important to us.

So what is so special about human life, Elric?

Whoa, buddy. People care about life. You know, if it's a child, or a puppy or kitten. Otherwise, yeah I guess you're right.

The images I used were actually utrasound pics. Unless they have developed new technology then those aren't even real pictures. I guess unless it's after the abortion, i don't know. I wish I could find my daughters then I would know for sure.

I know the bible isn't fact, my point was it's been debated for thousands of years.

[quote=Elric;592437]I know the bible isn't fact, my point was it's been debated for thousands of years.

Well it's a **** good thing you provided proof of this fact because, surely, without your quotation of the Bible I would have had no idea. Plus, had I not known that this debate has been going on for some time, I'm confident that it would have severely altered my point of view!

[quote=KoH;592236]... "bag it before you tag it"...?

Your parents never told you that before you decide to go on and **** her, you best wrap-up that sucker?

[quote=Down The Sun;592523]Your parents never told you that before you decide to go on and **** her, you best wrap-up that sucker?

I learned from my idiot father's mistake when my half-brother was born. :)

Elric: Btw, if you want to get into Biblical bull**** with me, you're welcome to it. Truth is, the Bible, despite how many ways you may want to interpret it, is neither for or against abortion. It's a common misconception that many extreme right wing conservatives use in their debate for anti-abortion.

Example:

"Exodus 21:22: "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart [from her], and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges [determine]." (KJV)
This scripture has nothing to do with the voluntary, intentional choice of a woman (or her husband, in the days before women had many rights) to have an abortion. It is about two men struggling together who ACCIDENTALLY cause her to have a miscarriage, and the resulting penalties. The point that it is about 3rd-party causation rather than voluntary choice. Without trying to equate human tissue with property, it is more analogous to someone voluntarily disposing of unwanted property (no problem) as opposed to a 3rd party taking it contrary to the owner's intent (theft). Even so, notice that the value here is on the WOMAN, not the fetus. The penalties vary, depending on whether or not there is "harm." Harm to whom? The fetus? There was a miscarriage - by definition the fetus is already DEAD. The variability of "harm" obviously means injury to the woman. But even if there is no harm (injury) they must still have a penalty because, like modern fundamentalists wish to do, they deprived her (or her husband) of CHOICE (in this case, to complete a pregnancy). This example of a third-party violent attack (or carelessness) has no relevance whatsoever to the situation in which a woman makes a VOLUNTARY choice to abort the contents of her OWN BODY under MEDICALLY-SUPERVISED conditions. The fact that this is raised regarding something it has no relation to shows the abject desperation of those who want to find something, anything, in the Bible, but cannot find anything that actually says what they want it to. Why can't they just accept the Bible as it is instead of trying to change it?"

Source: http://www.wordwiz72.com/chscript.html

That's basically been my view of the enitre "The Bible and abortion" argument.

While it is very much appropriate in some cases to use the Bible in a debate, especially one that argues moral obligations, I simply can not respect anyone (either who agrees or disagrees with me) who uses the Bible to further his own personal agenda. Yeah, the Bible's often looked at as "the ultimate resource for showing what's wrong and right." It has many good lessons and stories, granted. However, do you really think that you should force your opinion on others while using the Bible to back up your claims?

Still waiting for an answer. Come on, I have this neat point to make and everything!

Cause humans are perfect Speedfreak, we're better than everything and everyone. Our existence has even more value than that of choice. We exist to procreate and to sully that notion is a sin against god. :)

[quote=Speedfreak;592256]Why, exactly, is human life important again? I specify human life because humans clearly don't give a crap about any other form of life. We eat feilds and feilds of grain and vegetables, cut down entire forests to make houses and have efficient slaughter houses to process our meat. Not to motion the trillions upon trillions of germs we kill every day. Life, as a matter of fact, is not important to us.

So what is so special about human life, Elric?

I shall answer.

We are capable of independent and advanced thought which no other animal is capable of.

To be honest I'm just curious as to your answer.

A human life is only morally important. There's really no necessity of a specific human life in the ecosystem. In fact, the ecosystem would clearly be better off. We aren't the most important part of the food chain or anything. Hell, humans are about as useful as chickens to the planet. Some higher life form could harvest human babies, have some humans live in a caged in area, and maybe there'd be wild humans in forests or valleys. Earth itself would be fine because humans aren't needed to maintain the planet.

However, we're the most capable beings occupying it, so we rule.

[quote=KoH;592683]I shall answer.

We are capable of independent and advanced thought which no other animal is capable of.

To be honest I'm just curious as to your answer.

Ding ding ding.

UNDEVELOPED FOETUSES ARE NOT CAPABLE OF INTELLIGENT THOUGHT AND ARE NOT SELF-AWARE AND THEREFORE DO NOT HAVE THE PROPERTIES THAT MAKE FULLY DEVELOPED HUMAN LIFEFORMS PRECIOUS.

SORRY TOO SIMPLE, DANGEROUS SLIPPERY SLOPE

HERE WE GO AGAIN

*mudslide*

CONDORS ARE PEOPLE TOO

For Christ's ****ing sake, stop bringing the *** ****ed Bible into this. Next, some ******* will spoil it for us with news that the bible DOES actually forbid gays and homosexual relationships from being.

We are the only one's that doesn't fit in naturally.

OMGZ, WE ARE THE ANAMOLY.

Serioulsy tho, we are.

[quote=Philsdad;593197]You're kidding me, the Bible is the answer for all moral questions. Take Leviticus 19:19 for example, which deals with one of the worst moral atrocities ever: planting two different crops in the same field!!!!

Lev 19:19 [NIV] Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

It's right there, spelled out plainly in the Bible. *** does NOT like fields with two different crops planted in them. I think we should protest farms that do this. Curse these evil, satanic farmers!

I remember the episode of the West Wing that pointed out exactly this. ****ing win, sir.

[quote=Philsdad;593197]You're kidding me, the Bible is the answer for all moral questions. Take Leviticus 19:19 for example, which deals with one of the worst moral atrocities ever: planting two different crops in the same field!!!!

Lev 19:19 [NIV] Keep my decrees. Do not mate different kinds of animals. Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

It's right there, spelled out plainly in the Bible. *** does NOT like fields with two different crops planted in them. I think we should protest farms that do this. Curse these evil, satanic farmers!

Well Phil, that's because that's an important matter, you shouldn't dabble in integrated farming. You may accidentally cross-breed a new species of hybrid corn that could very well end world hunger due to it's incredibly fast growth rate. And we really wouldn't want to happen, now would we?

[quote=Lunairetic;593253][COLOR=black]Or hybrid corn that could very well end the world with its hunger.[/COLOR]
Ah, touch

Cornpocalypse?

Back to the thread topic!

I believe in abortion because I like killing stuff.

Gotta hand it to you guys for the awesome derailing of this thread.

Speaking of derails, who's afraid of riding on trains?

Me. Actually, subways more than trains.

Anyone want to go out and get Subway for lunch? I hear it's baby-free meat nowadays..

[quote] This message has been deleted by Elric. Reason: Your not even worth the trouble

You're in denial..

[quote=Elric;603726]...and I am the dumb one. At least you back up with the most intelligent thing you can think of, which I'm sure that is the most intelligent thing you can think of.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the most incoherent sentence in the history of the English language.

You can call us idiots all you want, Elric, but I bet you've never even tasted a fetus before, so your inexperienced opinions are completely invalid.

[quote=Iris;603842]You can call us idiots all you want, Elric, but I bet you've never even tasted a fetus before, so your inexperienced opinions are completely invalid.

[IMG]http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/w/7/eating_babies2.jpg[/IMG]
[SIZE=7]Mmhmm ****in' mmhmm *****. Eatin' good in the mother****in' neighborhood!!

[SIZE=1]K' you're welcome, Iris.

[/SIZE][/SIZE][URL]http://my.opera.com/sajiwriter/blog/show.dml/462994?cid=2989214&startidx=50#comment2989214[/URL]
Just check that link out Elric, I triple-dog dare ya'..

I'm seriously afraid to ever come back to this thread. And it, surprisingly, isn't due to Elric's presence or his idiotic posts.

Uncalled for.

Seriously, KoH. Uncalled for.

anywho, I lol'd

[quote=The X;604034]Uncalled for.

What, I can't play dirty? Someone had to put the final nail in Elric's coffin.


[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;604037]Seriously, KoH. Uncalled for.

anywho, I lol'd

Atleast I know you'll never ***** out on me..

that guy's not eating a real baby. Additionally, thank you, Down the Sun, for being the nail in the coffin as to whether or not I would continue, after quite a few years, of perusing these boards. The old days of intelligent argument and harmless fun at nobody's expense are over. Seasoned veterans of stupidity like Down the Sun (who was he before?), backed by an influx of morons within the past 2 years has rendered vgchat pretty much boring. I guess the place just sucks, helped along by the fact that I haven't bought a console since the ps2, and don't plan on buying one anytime soon. Your shock value picture, while fake, DTS, worked. You ran me off, not by your attempt at being cruel or funny, but because you're frankly a humongous dumbass amongst a legion of dumbasasses and I can't be bothered to come in here looking for anything remotely entertaining anymore. Later douchebags. The ones I like, you're free to contact me whenever I'm on these days. I just figured that in this cesspool of morons spouting at the mouth in an argument that some of us on the boards have seen occur and reoccur four or five times, I'd take this opportunity to make my soliloquoy and escape. Later, tossers.

Jeremy

oh, and Vamp, it's been a fun ride watching you degenerate slowly into a complete asswhipe. I used to like you. Ah well (yes, I know you don't care, just a point worth making).

Pro-choice isn't necessarily against abortion..


[quote=Bj Blaskowitz;604506]that guy's not eating a real baby. Additionally, thank you, Down the Sun, for being the nail in the coffin as to whether or not I would continue, after quite a few years, of perusing these boards. The old days of intelligent argument and harmless fun at nobody's expense are over. Seasoned veterans of stupidity like Down the Sun (who was he before?), backed by an influx of morons within the past 2 years has rendered vgchat pretty much boring. I guess the place just sucks, helped along by the fact that I haven't bought a console since the ps2, and don't plan on buying one anytime soon. Your shock value picture, while fake, DTS, worked. You ran me off, not by your attempt at being cruel or funny, but because you're frankly a humongous dumb[COLOR=white]as[/COLOR]s amongst a legion of dumbas[COLOR=white]as[/COLOR]ses and I can't be bothered to come in here looking for anything remotely entertaining anymore.

Thanks cock sucker, that means alot to me. Buckets full of **** that is, like most of your rants and tirades. I care not to be humoring or enticing to any member's personal tastes, **** the community's opinion and **** you dickhole..

[QUOTE=Down The Sun;605012]Pro-choice isn't necessarily against abortion..

'Pro-choice' is a euphomism for 'pro-abortion'. Its nothing else.

I prefer "pro-fun".

"Anti-babies" is much more suitable.

What da!! :eek: 14 of the poll voters are in favor of murdering babies!!!!!! :eek: Good thing you guys are too young to vote!!!!

*15

murdering a baby is even more tempting after its been born, but i say whenever possible nip in the bud before it even starts.

Wtf?
My vote is against abortion?

Wierd.
I think one should be able to choose, it's not always a baby is wanted(rape).

[quote=ExoXile;916921]Wtf?
My vote is against abortion?

Wierd.
I think one should be able to choose, it's not always a baby is wanted(rape).

I forgot I voted against it as well; I also believe that a woman should be allowed to choose if she wants to have the child or not.

No, we must control women. We are men, we decide everything. Women have no right over their own bodies, if they give up their bodies they give up the rights of it.

And in case you didn't get it, it was satire.

if i get pregnant im killing it

dont want to ruin my life lol


i want hysterectomy asap

I've been torn on this issue forever, but what bothers me is the "women should have the right to do what they want with their bodies" argument. It's clearly not a part of a woman's body. Don't compare it to removing an extra appendage.

And the "unwanted" attitude really ****es me off. What if we just got rid of everyone we didn't want? Like violent criminals and the mentally handicapped. Be consistent.

If I had to pick a side I'd have to be pro-life. Aside from instances of rape (which isn't commonly the case) I just can't find a reason to justify it.

pro choice. not pro abortion you stupid ****s.
im pro choice. i really don't care lol.

oh and kaptain kutlass's post is so edgy i could cut myself on it.

I'm not careful with abortions due to moral reasons.
As I don't see it as being unethical in any way(Especially not early on.).

The reason I think people should not is because today's society is already too lax.
People need to take responsibility for their actions etc etc...

And it isn't hard.
Suuure rubber takes away part of it, but that's what birth control is for, rite rite?

[quote=Last Fog;917168]
What's your point? Abortion is a quick fix for irresponsible teenagers? Yeah, I get it. And that's the problem.
I can agree with you there, it sucks people are being irresponsible.

But no matter, it's not ending a life.
It's ending a potential life.
But as do you every time you jack off or go menstruating.

The option should be there.
I for one could never handle a baby whom was conceived through rape, the very thought makes me feel uneasy.

And I semi-contract my first sentence, seeing as most people who've had one abortion will probably not have another one.
Seeing as the procedure is indeed not as simple as many people might think.

What are you mad about? That I care about babies, or controlling women? Because it certainly can't be both. And where do you see whining? You're confused.

I never even said I was against it. I just hate false reasons to fully support it.

Confused? Nah. When you complain about destroying things that don't know anything, you're whining.

And what, don't tell me you're going to take the ol' "I think it's wrong, but I'm not against it." stance? Because just a few posts ago I'm pretty sure you said you couldn't justify it other than in cases of rape.

People who care about inert clusters of cells are complete faggots. You destroy more life through masturbation. We live in a world where we mass harvest all forms of animals and plants, we constantly destroy life without a second thought for all kinds of unnecessary reasons. But when we want to terminate a non-organism because we don't want to wreck our life or everyone else's we're suddenly supposed to give a s[COLOR=lightgreen]h[/COLOR]it because it has human DNA?

The only negatives to abortion are the risks of infertility.

[quote=Last Fog;917303]you wouldn't kill a dog because you're tired of cleaning up its s[COLOR=wheat]h[/COLOR]it.
Actually, if a dog went around ****ting everywhere, ****ing inside without any bettering within a year I'd have to put him down.

And my dad wouldn't even wait 6months.
(A dog that ****s and ****es inside after 6months has got some kind of defect.)

[quote]Explain how something resembling the human form, with organs and a heartbeat is just a cluster of cells.For one thing, -we- are just a big friggin' cluster of cells.


Also, for the resemblance of human form:
[IMG]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/304334264_8cba67ad75.jpg?v=0[/IMG]
That's in the 7th week, it's 1cm.



And I just don't wanna confuse anyone, I think the process of a baby actually being made is amazing.
I just don't think something with a brain smaller than 1mm is to be called human.

Remember, pretty much all life(mammalian) looks like this in their earlier stages.

[QUOTE=Last Fog;917303]Let me clarify (again):

I'm against abortion under circumstance which I believe are not legitimate. Similarly, putting a dog down when it's suffering or carrying rabies is considered the humane thing to do, but you wouldn't kill a dog because you're tired of cleaning up its shit.

Indeed. But I think you are wrong in saying that women don't have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to get rid of the baby. Using abortion instead of condom/pills is something I can't agree with, but people saying "zomg no u cant kil it u have to birth it because i say so" are stupid and intolerant.

And, would you care to explain why human life would be OH SO much more valuable than the life of anything else?

[quote=Last Fog;917303]Explain how something resembling the human form, with organs and a heartbeat is just a cluster of cells.

- Must resemble the human form
- Needs organs and a heartbeat

If these are the first two things you ask before killing something you're an idiot. It's not intelligent life, it isn't sentient. I'd rather anihilate a million foetuses than a single dolphin for this very reason.

I hate you a little less already, Speedy. But yeah, I believe it was Penn Jillette who sort of kind of cited somebody who compared and contrasted humans odd idea of the disparate definitions of life and death. What it takes to end someone's life, the exact opposite should be the beginning, which would mean we must at least have some brain wave function, which would be the most primary step towards calling that a creature with a consciousness unto itself. Before it's capable of being conscious separate from either parent, it's hard to consider it a legal life of it's own. Otherwise, shouldn't we be considered legally alive if there are some cells still living post-mortem? Your hair keeps growing for quite a while, right?

Edit: Also, the poll choices are stupid. Seriously, it's horrifically one-sided. No option for me to pick...

also:

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/VampiroV.Empire/1232615535360.jpg?t=1232618508[/IMG]

wouldn't really call that a human

It's probably not a human foetus.

Here's a video where a guy asks pro-life protesters what should happen to the women that have illegal abortions. They either cannot answer the question or wreck their own arguement with their answer. Most of the time that equate it with murder, but can't bring themselves to say that abortion deserves the same punishment as murder because it's not as bad.

[URL]http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21/how-to-stump-anti-abortionists-with-one-question/[/URL]

it's human

I'm for it. It's a woman's body so It's a woman's choice. I might lean towards some kind of law that prohibits abortion if the pregnant mother waits way too long (I'm talking months), but I'm sketchy on the details so I won't get into that.

Also what is up with the names pro life and pro choice? Let's get real, everyone is pro life and pro choice. It's for or against abortion that you should call yourself, don't try to make your cause sound better by giving it a nice, feel good name.

Isn't it Pro-Choice? Pro-Abortion sounds like every baby should be aborted.

Shouldn't we be caring more about people that are already living, like homeless and crazy people?

No, because that would require republicans to care about something that actually matters.

What about orphans?

Orphans? Are those the kids that people didn't want and didn't abort? I can see like, maybe, a hundred orphans in a year, but thousands? That's just irresponsible.

[quote=Vampiro V. Empire;921069]

[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/VampiroV.Empire/1232615535360.jpg?t=1232618508[/IMG]


We stopped the anti-christ.

How about criminalize abortion but also heavily criminalize giving the baby away to another parent in any form no matter what the circumstances, unless the mother dies of course. Orphanages would be illegal and turn into a new type of black market. I wonder what pro-life enthusiasts feel about that.

I think I'm on to some kind of ironic idea.

how bout this: abortion for some, and mini-american flags for all!

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

How about women do whatever they want with their parasite?

more like a tumor.

i always thought it funny that the lifers rest their argument on "well it will become life"... admitting that it isnt now.

pro lifers (not the real ones, the pro war pro death penalty anti choice people): we literally give no **** what happens to you once you are born.

Against it in all scenarios and all forms, after conception.

im against abortions, but for killing babies