Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Forums _ Debate _ ABORTION VERSION TWO

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 15 2006, 10:44 PM

yea, someone head to the other one and close it.

i'm going to lay down a few ground rules here.

1- i don't care what your stance is, and no one else does either

2- use logic and facts to try to convince us to believe something. it's called a debate not a disorganized rumble.

3- be civil. a lot of you seem to have problems with this.

4- no links, unless neccisary. no quoting outside sources over a paragraph. USE YOUR OWN WORDS. if i don't care what you think about it, why would i care what someone else thinks? and really. stop using other people's arguements.

alright. and you know, keeping your posts short isn't a bad thing either.

so, the set up:

should abortion be made illegal in the united states

Posted by: forza Jul 16 2006, 04:24 AM

Like I said in the other thread: this is a dead horse that needs respite -- badly.

But to answer the question posed: no, abortion should not be outlawed, for two reasons:

1) Realism: abortions are necessary at times. I don't like the idea of terminating a potential human being, but I don't like the idea of a baby having a baby even worse. How successful is a newborn with a 15 year old mother from the slums expected to be? If you can justify forcibly ruining several lives for the sake of your beliefs (of which almost 100% derive from your religion), I've lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense.

2) Litigation's sake: we have to uphold the validity of Supreme Court decisions at all costs. Sure, we review/question them all the time, but rarely do we overturn them. To do this would be to undermine the very foundation upon which our justice system resides. We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have).

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 16 2006, 11:36 AM

Uhh it's not closed...

Posted by: Arjuna Capulong Jul 16 2006, 12:51 PM

At first, I thought abortion should be outlawed.

Though, now that I think about it, it makes more sense that it should be allowed.

Like, forza up there, I don't like the idea of ending a baby's life, but it may be better than letting it live a horrible life. Not to mention it could ruin the mother's life, when in school and the such.

And I guess it would help prevent the population from going up so fast.
People keep saying, "Quality of quantity."

Posted by: ECD & C0 Jul 16 2006, 05:29 PM

why do we need a new topic on this? the old one is fine in my opinion

Killing a baby is heartless. If you can't handle a baby, you should give it up for adoption, or not have sex! Otherwise, use protection, and be careful.
Getting raped is scary, yeah, but why should the baby suffer, too? Every life is important.

^--- that pretty much sums it up

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 16 2006, 07:27 PM

^ Really, have you been raped, or do you know anyone who has been? Because I don't think you know how traumatic it is.

Posted by: disco infiltrator Jul 16 2006, 11:40 PM

What's wrong with sticking with the other thread?

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 17 2006, 01:12 AM

well, god v 1 was closed at 50, and for the past few pages of abortion v 1, there hasn't been much anything going on.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 17 2006, 03:45 AM

QUOTE(forza @ Jul 16 2006, 5:24 AM) *
If you can justify forcibly ruining several lives for the sake of your beliefs (of which almost 100% derive from your religion), I've lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense.

Ruining several lives? My sister got pregnant at 16 and was encouraged greatly by the hospital to have an abortion, but she chose not to. My nephew is now almost 4 and he is one of the biggest joys in all of our lives. I don't see how that ruins anything.

Also your statement about beliefs deriving from your religion is very ignorant. My beliefs do not come from my religion. I have created by opinion based on several factual articles and personal encounters having to do with abortion.

And by the way, I lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense years ago.

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 16 2006, 8:27 PM) *
^ Really, have you been raped, or do you know anyone who has been? Because I don't think you know how traumatic it is.

I know you weren't speaking to me, but I must reply, lol.

My girlfriend was raped at 14 years old before we dated. She said that if she had gotten pregnant, she would've kept the child because she believes it's not right for her or anyone to take the child's life even if she couldn't provide the child with everything it needs. It's always better to have hope that the child may overcome the outcome then to never give it a chance and always wonder what if.

If she had a child, I would've still dated her because it shows what a strong individual she is and she didn't take the easy way out.


This topic is getting old fast. There's nothing factual left. It's all just personal opinions on the subject. Same old stuff over and over again.

Posted by: forza Jul 17 2006, 03:49 AM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 17 2006, 3:45 AM) *
Ruining several lives? My sister got pregnant at 16 and was encouraged greatly by the hospital to have an abortion, but she chose not to. My nephew is now almost 4 and he is one of the biggest joys in all of our lives. I don't see how that ruins anything.

And by the way, I lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense years ago.
I know you weren't speaking to me, but I must reply, lol.


No worries, I appreciate your reply. But, my friend, in what percentage of the success spectrum do you think your sister's instance rests?

If I were to throw out a ballpark figure I'd say the bottom 5% -- if that.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 17 2006, 03:53 AM

^ It may actually surprise you. Hmm, maybe I can get some numbers and post them up. I'll go look :) I'm guessing this would be very difficult to record.

Posted by: forza Jul 17 2006, 04:14 AM

^ Yeah, I can't imagine the people at the abortion clinics/hospitals do very extensive follow-ups...

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 17 2006, 04:20 AM

Like i said in the other one I am against abortion !! It's wrong...I don't know how people can muder unborn children like it's sick minded...than there is always the people that are like Omg what if you got raped yer fair enough you would want to remove the baby cause like you would not want to give birth to a baby knowing you did not want it and did not plan for it to happen but appart from that....I think abortion is wrong cause like it's a mistake that the person made for not using protection and so they murder a child cause they did not wear protection like that is so stupid it should be illegal.

Posted by: forza Jul 17 2006, 04:23 AM

Oh, so my snide ass remark in the other thread wasn't barrier enough. She comes into the other thread to say the same thing.

_dry.gif

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 17 2006, 11:12 AM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 17 2006, 4:45 AM) *
My girlfriend was raped at 14 years old before we dated. She said that if she had gotten pregnant, she would've kept the child because she believes it's not right for her or anyone to take the child's life even if she couldn't provide the child with everything it needs. It's always better to have hope that the child may overcome the outcome then to never give it a chance and always wonder what if.

If she had a child, I would've still dated her because it shows what a strong individual she is and she didn't take the easy way out.


Having a child at 14? That's a very bad idea in my opinion - she's still a child herself.

I'm not saying that abortion should be THE only way, but I'm saying that having abortion if the person has been raped is not wrong. Nor is it to have it if the person isn't ready for kids and is still in school. If someone got pregnat and didn't want a kid, but has graduated from school, then I think it would be better to give it up for adoption.

Posted by: ECD & C0 Jul 17 2006, 11:37 AM

QUOTE
Really, have you been raped, or do you know anyone who has been? Because I don't think you know how traumatic it is.


did i say it wasn't? yes its traumatic, but so is killing your child --- most women regret ever having an abortion and some even commit suicide. You will never forget that you did that if you have an abortion it doesn't just go away.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 17 2006, 03:03 PM

alright. i'll bite.

let's see an article, perhaps, just one is fine, that says "woman commits suicide because of abortion"

yea. something like that.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 17 2006, 07:45 PM

^ http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120107.html
I couldn't find an article on a specific case. I'd imagine the news media wouldn't like to claim that a suicide was directly linked to suicide, but it's obviously evident that it has an effect.

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 17 2006, 12:12 PM) *
Having a child at 14? That's a very bad idea in my opinion - she's still a child herself.

I'm not saying that abortion should be THE only way, but I'm saying that having abortion if the person has been raped is not wrong. Nor is it to have it if the person isn't ready for kids and is still in school. If someone got pregnat and didn't want a kid, but has graduated from school, then I think it would be better to give it up for adoption.

Killing an unborn child is a very bad idea, in my opinion.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but like I said before, it's always better to have hope that the child may overcome the outcome then to just end any chance it has. Unfortunately, the majority of teens who have an abortion have it not because they're still in school but because they simply don't want the inconvenience of raising the child which is very selfish. If she took the risk of having sex, she should be responsible enough to raise the child. In a perfect world, your idea would hold true but we live in a far from perfect world. :\

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 17 2006, 10:08 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 17 2006, 8:45 PM) *
Killing an unborn child is a very bad idea, in my opinion.

I can definitely see where you're coming from, but like I said before, it's always better to have hope that the child may overcome the outcome then to just end any chance it has. Unfortunately, the majority of teens who have an abortion have it not because they're still in school but because they simply don't want the inconvenience of raising the child which is very selfish. If she took the risk of having sex, she should be responsible enough to raise the child. In a perfect world, your idea would hold true but we live in a far from perfect world. :\


So you'd rather keep the child, even if you couldn't afford it? Even if you knew it would have a miserable life? A woman has the right to have power over her own body, don't you think? And if you do have a child, your education will be pretty much over. Because you'd have to quit school to take care of the baby. There are people who care about education. And let's face it, many people have sex before they're ready for a child. It's not a perfect world, as you said..

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 17 2006, 11:58 PM

obvious to whom?

it must be scientifically proven.

people on antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide. does this mean antidepressants don't work?

unless a scientific study is done, you cannot draw these assumptions.

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 18 2006, 12:41 AM

QUOTE(forza @ Jul 17 2006, 4:23 AM) *
Oh, so my snide ass remark in the other thread wasn't barrier enough. She comes into the other thread to say the same thing.

_dry.gif


Dude are you trying to annoy me ??

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 18 2006, 12:45 AM

that much is obvious.

please, read the first post. if you intend to convince us to change our minds ( i'm pro- woman's rights, by the way), then by all means post. but if you simply wish to share a piece of your mind, well, we have enough of that.

Posted by: Acid Bath Slayer Jul 18 2006, 01:02 AM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 17 2006, 7:45 PM) *
Killing an unborn child is a very bad idea, in my opinion.


Why, exactly, is it such a bad idea? What is it that gives an unborn child more value than the freedom a woman has over her body? What gives the government, or anyone for that matter, the right to force a woman to carry a child to term? Of what immediate value is the unborn child and why is it morally objectionable to abort it?

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 18 2006, 01:03 AM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 18 2006, 12:58 AM) *
obvious to whom?

it must be scientifically proven.

people on antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide. does this mean antidepressants don't work?

unless a scientific study is done, you cannot draw these assumptions.

Did you even read the article? Please define what you think a scientific study is. That was a scientific study, not assumptions.

If people on antidepressants are more likely to commit suicide, there's obviously something wrong with the medication, wouldn't you say? And I don't understand where you're going with that statement anyway. It has nothing to do with anything I or that article have stated. Please explain.

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 17 2006, 11:08 PM) *
So you'd rather keep the child, even if you couldn't afford it? Even if you knew it would have a miserable life? A woman has the right to have power over her own body, don't you think? And if you do have a child, your education will be pretty much over. Because you'd have to quit school to take care of the baby. There are people who care about education. And let's face it, many people have sex before they're ready for a child. It's not a perfect world, as you said..

I can't see into the future. How can I, or anyone know the child would have a miserable life? It's impossible. There are many many many people who have had single teenage mothers and have risen above and lead wonderful lives. Even a lot of athletes and celebrities. It gave them a reason to want to overcome and per sue their dreams. It's a natural human instinct to want to thrive and get better and better.

Yes, I do think woman has the right to have power over her own body. She has a choice of what she does with her body. She chose to use her body and have sex before she was able to support a child. Is that the child's fault? I don't think the mother has the right to deny a child of living because of her mistake. After all, the fetus is not her body. It's inside her, growing, but it's not her. And, actually, at my school this year 5 girls were pregnant (I know, everybody jokes that our school is a breeding ground) and they only left school for a few months to have the baby and recover. All 5 of them are returning to school next year. They just had to make up work in summer school and summer school's a push over. Their family looks after the baby when they are away. I don't see a problem with that. After all, they are a family. My brothers and sisters had to take care of me when I was young and my parents were at work. I don't get your idea that they have to quit school.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 18 2006, 01:33 AM

i read the article. it didn't name the studies, let alone cite them, so i can't even look into the 'scientific research' to see if it's legit.

the site that wrote the article, moreover, has close associations with pro-life organizations, and thus cannot be taken as an unbiased source.

as for the antidepressants; the answer is simple. people on antidepressants are people who are already at higher risk for suicide. why else would they be taking antidepressants?

Posted by: forza Jul 18 2006, 03:59 AM

I feel that you're an idealist trying to woo the staunch, immobile realists that dwell in this forum, iRock cB..

In that endeavor you're bound to fail.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 18 2006, 12:38 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 18 2006, 2:03 AM) *
I can't see into the future. How can I, or anyone know the child would have a miserable life? It's impossible. There are many many many people who have had single teenage mothers and have risen above and lead wonderful lives. Even a lot of athletes and celebrities. It gave them a reason to want to overcome and per sue their dreams. It's a natural human instinct to want to thrive and get better and better.

Yes, I do think woman has the right to have power over her own body. She has a choice of what she does with her body. She chose to use her body and have sex before she was able to support a child. Is that the child's fault? I don't think the mother has the right to deny a child of living because of her mistake. After all, the fetus is not her body. It's inside her, growing, but it's not her. And, actually, at my school this year 5 girls were pregnant (I know, everybody jokes that our school is a breeding ground) and they only left school for a few months to have the baby and recover. All 5 of them are returning to school next year. They just had to make up work in summer school and summer school's a push over. Their family looks after the baby when they are away. I don't see a problem with that. After all, they are a family. My brothers and sisters had to take care of me when I was young and my parents were at work. I don't get your idea that they have to quit school.


Well, how can you KNOW that the baby will have a wonderful life if the mother can't even support herself financially? And if the father isn't there? (which, by the way, happens more often than you think, when a teen mother gets pregnat) It's tough growing up without a father, you know. And it's a very bad idea to have a child when YOU're still a child yourself. That's the worst thing I can think of. It's not right. But guess what - she's already done the mistake. There's no going back. And most people learn from their mistakes.

If the woman has the right to have power over her own body, it's her choice whether to have an abortion or not. You can't place a fetus' "rights" above a woman's. Whether she's made the mistake - it doesn't matter. It's not wrong to keep the baby, but it's also not wrong to have an abortion. We're people, and people make mistakes. I hope you know that. It's not an ideal life.

I know three girls who got pregnat and decided to have the baby. All three dropped out of school. You wanna know what they're doing now? One of them is cleaner at a school, the other one doesn't have a job, and the third one lives in a small village and as far as I know, she doesn't have a job either. Of course, all three love their kids, but you have no idea how hard it's been for them, especially without a father. Needless to say, they're not happy. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes.

And why should a single mother have a baby she doesn't want? Especially if she's been raped. There are reasons why abortion is legal in most places. Those people there aren't idiots, most of them.

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 18 2006, 04:53 PM

^^^


Hmm Interseting I agree with some of the points you have made


but if you had fallen pregnant and there was no father and you did not want to bring a baby into the world with no father instead of getting an abortion you could simply have the child and put it up for adoption because if you were not stable enough to have a child because I finacial issues or there was no family support than at least you could put the baby up for adoption so in that way it will go to a family.

Just because you fall pregant and you don't have anough money or support it should not give people the right to abortion there are homes out there that want a baby that they cannot have one themself so instead of murdering the child because you cannot suport it why not give it to a family that has the money to support it.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 18 2006, 09:34 PM

QUOTE(Mells-Star @ Jul 18 2006, 5:53 PM) *
^^^
Hmm Interseting I agree with some of the points you have made
but if you had fallen pregnant and there was no father and you did not want to bring a baby into the world with no father instead of getting an abortion you could simply have the child and put it up for adoption because if you were not stable enough to have a child because I finacial issues or there was no family support than at least you could put the baby up for adoption so in that way it will go to a family.

Just because you fall pregant and you don't have anough money or support it should not give people the right to abortion there are homes out there that want a baby that they cannot have one themself so instead of murdering the child because you cannot suport it why not give it to a family that has the money to support it.


Yeah I see what you mean and I agree, but if that person's still in school or if their health isn't that great, they could get an abortion. I mean, I'm a pianist and if it happened to me, I wouldn't be able to play in the last 3-4 months or so. And that would pretty much ruin my career.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 18 2006, 09:45 PM

QUOTE(forza @ Jul 18 2006, 4:59 AM) *
I feel that you're an idealist trying to woo the staunch, immobile realists that dwell in this forum, iRock cB..

In that endeavor you're bound to fail.

Well unfortunately, forza, you've fallen victim to the "judge others before you know them" trait. Unlike you, I do not see this as a battle of wits. I'm not trying to "woo" anyone, especially on a pathetic online forum with people who I will most likely never meet. You people's opinion means pretty much nothing to me, but I still am respectful and read what you have to say, just as you should with what I have to say. These are my ideas and my opinions that I express. There is no way to "fail" in that. Just because you disagree with my idea doesn't make it wrong or right because, frankly, who are you? You're a nobody to me, as I probably am to you. I actually pity the fact that you see this as some kind of battle that can only result in victory or failure. We're merely just stating our opinions in an intelligent manner. If you have nothing more intelligent to post then the ignorance you have just posted, I suggest you stay out. Please, don't waste our time.
QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 18 2006, 1:38 PM) *
Well, how can you KNOW that the baby will have a wonderful life if the mother can't even support herself financially? And if the father isn't there? (which, by the way, happens more often than you think, when a teen mother gets pregnat) It's tough growing up without a father, you know. And it's a very bad idea to have a child when YOU're still a child yourself. That's the worst thing I can think of. It's not right. But guess what - she's already done the mistake. There's no going back. And most people learn from their mistakes.

If the woman has the right to have power over her own body, it's her choice whether to have an abortion or not. You can't place a fetus' "rights" above a woman's. Whether she's made the mistake - it doesn't matter. It's not wrong to keep the baby, but it's also not wrong to have an abortion. We're people, and people make mistakes. I hope you know that. It's not an ideal life.

I know three girls who got pregnat and decided to have the baby. All three dropped out of school. You wanna know what they're doing now? One of them is cleaner at a school, the other one doesn't have a job, and the third one lives in a small village and as far as I know, she doesn't have a job either. Of course, all three love their kids, but you have no idea how hard it's been for them, especially without a father. Needless to say, they're not happy. It doesn't always happen, but it does sometimes.

See, now you impress me. You actually think things through before you say anything. But, I must take the opposing side on this one, haha. The only thing is that you keep repeating things that you have already said and I have already answered. Please try and come up with something new. To me, you're just reiterating because you have run out of an argument.

You see, the way you said "when you know the child will have a miserable life" in your previous post to me, I took that as if you were saying that EVERY child will have a miserable life. And now your statement "how can you KNOW that the baby will have a wonderful life," is the same thing. I can ask the question "how do you KNOW it won't?" That will get us nowhere, so it's basically pointless. I'd hope that you would agree with me that there is no way to know. So, I ask you, would you rather give the child a chance to over come, or no chance at all? No chance to per sue life. You (and I don't mean you personally) cut the child down by never giving it a chance. Which is better: Hope or no hope. If nobody had hope and never gave anyone a chance, we would not get very far in life as an individual or as a society. I agree that it's not a good idea to have a child when you are a child yourself, but it's not the baby's fault, now is it? Why should she take it's life? Give it up for adoption.

As I have already said at least 3 times already, and explained to several people I know in real life, the fetus is not PART of the woman's body. It is only growing inside her. The child is it's own being. If a fetus is "part" of a woman's body, they would have the same DNA. A "part" of a body is defined by its having the same DNA as other parts. You might argue that the child is dependant on the mother, so it has to be part of her body. Not true. If you or I get into a terrible car accident and are dependent on the life support system, does that make us part of the machine? Not at all. If the child was a part of the woman, then in the case that a pregnant mother dies, the child would die also. Not so. A fetus can survive without it's mothers support for a while. It would die eventually, yet, but you or I would also die without any food supply.

So, now we have established that the child is not part of the mothers body.

I agree with you. The woman does indeed have the right to have power over her own body. But guess what? The child is not part of her body, therefore, she has no power to choose if it lives or not. I obviously already know that we're people, and people make mistakes and that it's not an ideal life as I have already made a statement almost exactly similar to that. But does that mean that woman should take her mistake out on the child? If I decide to get drunk and go get in a car and nearly kill myself and others by getting in an accident, should I blame the beer company for selling the beer and sue them?

Ok, so you know those three girls. I've very sorry for them, but the 5 girls I know went back to school, so what's your point? It was their choice not to go back to school, not the child's. I admire those 3 girls you know for not having an abortion. So, I wonder, what's their view on abortion? Why, if they knew that everything would go wrong in their life and they would be unhappy, did they choose not to have an abortion? Why did they chose to sacrifice their lives to give their children a chance at their own life? I challenge you to ask them that. I'm sure you'd get an interesting response.
QUOTE
And why should a single mother have a baby she doesn't want? Especially if she's been raped. There are reasons why abortion is legal in most places. Those people there aren't idiots, most of them.
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant statement. Often times I find myself not wanting my little sister. Does that give me the right to kill her? Sometimes I don't feel like dealing with my dog. Does that mean I should kill him? So, basically, you're saying if someone doesn't "want" something, they can just kill it off or get rid of it in some form. One word: Adoption. If the woman does not want to keep the child that she had because of rape, she can put it up for adoption. It solves both issues. In the end, the woman does not have the child and the child still gets a chance at life. It's a win win situation.

Sorry for the long post. There was a lot to cover, haha. I tried to shorten it as much as possible. happy.gif

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 18 2006, 11:07 PM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 18 2006, 1:33 AM) *
i read the article. it didn't name the studies, let alone cite them, so i can't even look into the 'scientific research' to see if it's legit.

the site that wrote the article, moreover, has close associations with pro-life organizations, and thus cannot be taken as an unbiased source.

as for the antidepressants; the answer is simple. people on antidepressants are people who are already at higher risk for suicide. why else would they be taking antidepressants?


please respond to that.

anyways, i get the feeling you have no idea what it's like to raise a child, let alone as a single mother without a job.

is your school... moderately affluent? these girls who get pregnant, thier parents have jobs that pay alright?

i'm not trying to justify anything right now, so don't worry. i'm just questioning your reasoning.

iRock cB, you should be trying to woo people. it's the whole point of this forum. this isn't a place to just express your opinions and let others read them. we're not merely stating our opinions- if you had bothered to read over the first post, you would notice that.

you may do well to go back and read it now.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 18 2006, 11:28 PM

As has been said many times, this issue has been argued over and over again. All of the facts are out there for both sides of the argument. All that is left is your personal opinion. I am a strong believer in pro-choice. Most people choose extremes to both sides. But consider this...just because abortions are kept legal does not mean that everyone has to have one. I don't understand why this is such a big issue when it is not up to the public to decided. It is up to each individual person in the situation, why should anyone else have the right to decide that they should have to go through that experience? Who's to say what justifies the right circumstances for an abortion or not? The women in the situation. That's who.

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 18 2006, 11:45 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 18 2006, 9:45 PM) *
Often times I find myself not wanting my little sister. Does that give me the right to kill her? Sometimes I don't feel like dealing with my dog. Does that mean I should kill him? So, basically, you're saying if someone doesn't "want" something, they can just kill it off or get rid of it in some form. One word: Adoption. If the woman does not want to keep the child that she had because of rape, she can put it up for adoption. It solves both issues. In the end, the woman does not have the child and the child still gets a chance at life. It's a win win situation.


Omg I so agree with what you are saying thumbsup.gif

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 19 2006, 10:01 AM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 18 2006, 10:45 PM) *
See, now you impress me. You actually think things through before you say anything.


I'm sorry, but there was no need for that. That's personal, and you shouldn't bring your emotions into a debate. I really don't care what you think about my "thinking skills".

QUOTE
But, I must take the opposing side on this one, haha. The only thing is that you keep repeating things that you have already said and I have already answered. Please try and come up with something new. To me, you're just reiterating because you have run out of an argument.


I base my arguments on what you've said.

QUOTE
You see, the way you said "when you know the child will have a miserable life" in your previous post to me, I took that as if you were saying that EVERY child will have a miserable life. And now your statement "how can you KNOW that the baby will have a wonderful life," is the same thing. I can ask the question "how do you KNOW it won't?" That will get us nowhere, so it's basically pointless. I'd hope that you would agree with me that there is no way to know.


No, of course I didn't mean every child. I'm sorry, but I'm not stupid. I said how can you KNOW that the baby will have a wonderful life, as opposed to a miserable life. Sometimes, it's obvious. When you have no money and you live nowhere, and the father isn't there, there's almost a certainty that the child won't lead a perfect life. Do you seriously disagree with this? I don't think you know what it's like to live in poor conditions. I've been there. I've lived in Bulgaria for almost 14 years, and I know what it's like. Sometimes, it's just not ideal for raising a baby in such environment.

QUOTE
So, I ask you, would you rather give the child a chance to over come, or no chance at all? No chance to per sue life. You (and I don't mean you personally) cut the child down by never giving it a chance. Which is better: Hope or no hope. If nobody had hope and never gave anyone a chance, we would not get very far in life as an individual or as a society. I agree that it's not a good idea to have a child when you are a child yourself, but it's not the baby's fault, now is it? Why should she take it's life? Give it up for adoption.


Let me ask you this - do you know how it feels to be pregnat? You're a guy, so I presume you don't. Also, do you know what adoption homes are like in Bulgaria? Or in other poor countries in Europe and elsewhere? I cannot describe it to you with words. It's 15-20 kids living in ONE room. With minimal conditions. Most of them never get educated. And most of them never get adopted. Because not many people look to adopt in such counries. Americans/Canadians have it easy.

QUOTE
As I have already said at least 3 times already, and explained to several people I know in real life, the fetus is not PART of the woman's body. It is only growing inside her. The child is it's own being. If a fetus is "part" of a woman's body, they would have the same DNA. A "part" of a body is defined by its having the same DNA as other parts. You might argue that the child is dependant on the mother, so it has to be part of her body. Not true. If you or I get into a terrible car accident and are dependent on the life support system, does that make us part of the machine? Not at all.


Nice research you did there. Sorry to dissapoint, but it is a part of the woman. You can't compare it to other examples, because how can you really compare a pregnat woman with a hospital? That's not logical to me. And identical twins have the same DNA, but one is not a part of the other. What's your argument there?

QUOTE
If the child was a part of the woman, then in the case that a pregnant mother dies, the child would die also. Not so. A fetus can survive without it's mothers support for a while. It would die eventually, yet, but you or I would also die without any food supply.


If the woman dies, the fetus will die probably within hours. So how can you use that as your argument really? It cannot survive on its own. Therefore, it's dependant on the woman. How can you even say that it will survive if the mother dies? We could also survive without food for a while, but we'd also die after. Right?

QUOTE
But does that mean that woman should take her mistake out on the child? If I decide to get drunk and go get in a car and nearly kill myself and others by getting in an accident, should I blame the beer company for selling the beer and sue them?


Haha, in USA, you can sue pretty much everyone for pretty much everything. I'm not gonna argue for that.

QUOTE
Why did they chose to sacrifice their lives to give their children a chance at their own life? I challenge you to ask them that. I'm sure you'd get an interesting response.


You really wanna know? One of them didn't have money, or at least that's what she told me. The other two didn't know what they were getting into. Of course they regret it.. I've talked with them millions of times. One used to be my best friend when I lived there. You have NO idea whatsoever how hard it is to raise a baby on your OWN without a job, without a father in a shit-little town.

QUOTE
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant statement.


Tell me it's ignorant when YOU get raped. Then we can talk.

QUOTE
Often times I find myself not wanting my little sister. Does that give me the right to kill her? Sometimes I don't feel like dealing with my dog. Does that mean I should kill him? So, basically, you're saying if someone doesn't "want" something, they can just kill it off or get rid of it in some form. One word: Adoption. If the woman does not want to keep the child that she had because of rape, she can put it up for adoption. It solves both issues. In the end, the woman does not have the child and the child still gets a chance at life. It's a win win situation.


I see what you're saying, but the comparisons you make are absurd. How can you compare a fetus with a dog? Or how can you give the example with your sister? It's not the same thing, dear.

Sure, adoption is the much better way to go, but as I said, abortion is an option too. I think I've said this, but if -I- got pregnat, I wouldn't be able to play/perform for at least the last 3-4 months, and that would literally ruin my career. I'm not saying it's the BEST way to go - no, it isn't. But it's an option and it's available.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 19 2006, 10:14 AM

QUOTE(ECD & C0 @ Jul 17 2006, 12:37 PM) *
did i say it wasn't? yes its traumatic, but so is killing your child --- most women regret ever having an abortion and some even commit suicide. You will never forget that you did that if you have an abortion it doesn't just go away.


Hmm. Did you also know that some pregnat women who get raped also commit suicide? What's worse - ending one "life", or two?

QUOTE
It is up to each individual person in the situation, why should anyone else have the right to decide that they should have to go through that experience? Who's to say what justifies the right circumstances for an abortion or not? The women in the situation. That's who.


Voila.

Posted by: forza Jul 19 2006, 02:26 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 18 2006, 9:45 PM) *
Well unfortunately, forza, you've fallen victim to the "judge others before you know them" trait. Unlike you, I do not see this as a battle of wits. I'm not trying to "woo" anyone, especially on a pathetic online forum with people who I will most likely never meet. You people's opinion means pretty much nothing to me, but I still am respectful and read what you have to say, just as you should with what I have to say. These are my ideas and my opinions that I express. There is no way to "fail" in that. Just because you disagree with my idea doesn't make it wrong or right because, frankly, who are you? You're a nobody to me, as I probably am to you. I actually pity the fact that you see this as some kind of battle that can only result in victory or failure. We're merely just stating our opinions in an intelligent manner. If you have nothing more intelligent to post then the ignorance you have just posted, I suggest you stay out. Please, don't waste our time.


Look, don't get your panties in a twist. All I was getting at is that you're not going to be able to persuade people who have realized that this 'debate' is pointless. You want to stay here and beat up the dead horse and spew out your 'opinions' all over the walls, then be my lousy guest; that's your choke.

But don't attack me personally. Not now, not ever. That's rule #5 up there in the stickies, I suggest you read them.

Thank you, and f**k off.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 19 2006, 06:22 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 18 2006, 7:45 PM) *
As I have already said at least 3 times already, and explained to several people I know in real life, the fetus is not PART of the woman's body. It is only growing inside her. The child is it's own being. If a fetus is "part" of a woman's body, they would have the same DNA. A "part" of a body is defined by its having the same DNA as other parts. You might argue that the child is dependant on the mother, so it has to be part of her body. Not true. If you or I get into a terrible car accident and are dependent on the life support system, does that make us part of the machine? Not at all. If the child was a part of the woman, then in the case that a pregnant mother dies, the child would die also. Not so. A fetus can survive without it's mothers support for a while. It would die eventually, yet, but you or I would also die without any food supply.


Ahem, you cannot compare a fetus living off of the mother to us living off of say a respirator. Uhh we at least have the ability to live on our own, while a fetus has absolutely no chance. Invent a machine that can carry a two month old fetus around..then we'll talk. It is a part of the mother because it depends on the mother. Maybe not by definition of the word, but they are sharing the same food, air, water, and are connected. Now I don't know about you..but to me it seems like they're a part of one another.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 19 2006, 06:58 PM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 19 2006, 12:07 AM) *
please respond to that.

anyways, i get the feeling you have no idea what it's like to raise a child, let alone as a single mother without a job.

is your school... moderately affluent? these girls who get pregnant, thier parents have jobs that pay alright?

i'm not trying to justify anything right now, so don't worry. i'm just questioning your reasoning.

iRock cB, you should be trying to woo people. it's the whole point of this forum. this isn't a place to just express your opinions and let others read them. we're not merely stating our opinions- if you had bothered to read over the first post, you would notice that.

you may do well to go back and read it now.

Sorry Acid, I forgot to respond to that. It was late, lol. I know, I wasn't able to find the source either but I know that article is posted around numerous web sites and news sites that don't have anything to do with abortion, so it's likely that the site didn't pull it out of the sky. I'd be happy to see if I can find the sources and put them up later.

Ok, I see what you mean with the antidepressants, but, again, what's that got to do with abortion? Give me parallels. I'm sorry if it's obvious to you, but I can't find the similarity.

Do you know what it's like to raise a child? If you don't, then why even ask that? It's quite hypocritical if you haven't. And I do have a younger sister that I have helped raise my whole life, in a sense. When my parents go to work, I had to look after her and I fed her, changed her, and woke up when she did most of the time because her room was right next to mine, lol. My sister, as I've said before, had her baby at 16 and she is a single mom and for a long while, had no job. Now my family is not rich at all but we still did the best we could to raise him, and we still try our best even today. She lives in Florida now though. She got her GED, which is the exact same as getting a high school diploma, and she went to college. Now she's a dental assistant making great money. So no, I guess I don't know what raising a child all by myself is like, but I most certainly know a lot about it.

No, my school is far from affluent. It's one of the poorest schools in the county and state. My county is all farm lands. It's quite a poor county. :\ I think one of the girls, Lakiva, has parents with a pretty good pay, but I can't be positive. I never had a class with her, so I don't know her that well.

And don't worry, I'm not worried.

I did indeed read the first post and nowhere in that do I see where we're trying to "woo" people in the manner that forza suggested. Especially number 1. I don't think it's me you need to be telling to read the first post.

It clearly says Should abortion be illegal in the United States, not Bulgaria. Oh, also number 3 for others.

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 19 2006, 11:01 AM) *
I'm sorry, but there was no need for that. That's personal, and you shouldn't bring your emotions into a debate. I really don't care what you think about my "thinking skills".

And I don't care what you think about mine. happy.gif I just thought I'd say something nice, because you seem to be getting a little frustrated. Not saying you are, that's just how it appears.

I never said you didn't base my arguments on what I've said, but when I have already answered something and you go right back and say it again, that gets old fast and makes me think you're desperate to find an argument. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are, but that's just how it comes across. _smile.gif

I never said you were stupid. mellow.gif Did you even comprehend what I said? Ok, let me ask the saaamme thing, again. How can you KNOW that the baby will have a miserable life, as opposed to a wonderful life? It will get us nowhere. When I was younger. I had to wear the same clothes my older siblings wore and we drove around in a truck with half a floor board because it was rusted out and we lived in a house with rats and roaches that was given to us for free and my father was without a job for 3 years. My mother was in the hospital a lot because she had a brain tumor the size of a baseball. So yes, I have lived in poor conditions. Let's not turn this into a pity party, ok? I'm sorry you lived in poor conditions, I really am, but guess what? My mother had my baby sister during those times, and we made it just fine. Don't start throwing around excuses.
QUOTE
Let me ask you this - do you know how it feels to be pregnat? You're a guy, so I presume you don't. Also, do you know what adoption homes are like in Bulgaria? Or in other poor countries in Europe and elsewhere? I cannot describe it to you with words. It's 15-20 kids living in ONE room. With minimal conditions. Most of them never get educated. And most of them never get adopted. Because not many people look to adopt in such counries. Americans/Canadians have it easy.


Let me ask you this. Do YOU know what it's like to be pregnant? Please, don't be hypocritical. It's one of the two things I hate in life. Hypocrisy and ignorance. And, darling, we're here to discuss abortion in America, ok? Not Bulgaria. I'm very sorry about your countries condition, but what does that have to do with anything? Considering that this debate is about abortion in America, your statement is a personal one, so let's not bring our emotions into debate, ok? rolleyes.gif Frankly, why are you in here? You don't even live in America. This topic is based on the question of should abortion be legalized in the United States, therefore I don't see why you're in here if you do not live here. If you'd like to debate about abortion in general and give us reasons to pity your country, go elsewhere, thanks. happy.gif
QUOTE
Nice research you did there. Sorry to dissapoint, but it is a part of the woman. You can't compare it to other examples, because how can you really compare a pregnat woman with a hospital? That's not logical to me. And identical twins have the same DNA, but one is not a part of the other. What's your argument there?
If the woman dies, the fetus will die probably within hours. So how can you use that as your argument really? It cannot survive on its own. Therefore, it's dependant on the woman. How can you even say that it will survive if the mother dies? We could also survive without food for a while, but we'd also die after. Right?


Considering I didn't do any research, I'll take that as a compliment. laugh.gif I learned that in Biology AP after we had a two day discussion on abortion. And before you go saying that my teacher was pro-life, he wasn't. He's an atheist and pro-choice. So, you're pretty much calling my information false. Mind backing that up with some facts? If you can doubt my information that came right down from a trained professional who went to college to major in biology, surely I can doubt yours. So, go ahead, prove it. And actually, if you'd like to get scientific, identical twins have different phenotypes. That means the same DNA is expressed in different ways, therefore, it's not identical. To a DNA test, yes, but the genes in twins are different. If twins had the exact same DNA and genetic code, like parts of a body do, they would have the same set of finger prints. But, they don't. Wow, and I never thought biology/physical science class would come in handy! laugh.gif I'd like you to read an article: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/18/fetus.found.alive. That baby was only 7 and a half months old in the womb. According to you, that would be fully dependant on it's mother. She is still alive today. It's actually been proven. This wasn't a freak event. If you're skeptical, look it up. I'm not wasting my time.

Ok, seriously, did you even read my entire post? What I bolded in your quote was the exact same thing I said, you're just trying to use it to attribute to your argument. And again, that looks like you're running out of things to argue.

QUOTE
Haha, in USA, you can sue pretty much everyone for pretty much everything. I'm not gonna argue for that.

Your statement is irrelevant, and you refuse to argue the point? Interesting...

QUOTE
You really wanna know? One of them didn't have money, or at least that's what she told me. The other two didn't know what they were getting into. Of course they regret it.. I've talked with them millions of times. One used to be my best friend when I lived there. You have NO idea whatsoever how hard it is to raise a baby on your OWN without a job, without a father in a shit-little town.

Yes, I really want to know, or I wouldn't have asked. mellow.gif You're from Bulgaria, right? Yes, that's right. So, I'm assuming your friends live around there too, right? Yes, I can imagine the conditions for your friends are much worse then anything here in America, but guess what? We're dicussing the United States, so I must ask again, what's your point? Ok, do you have any idea how hard it is to raise a baby on YOUR own without a job, without a father, in a shit-little town? No, you only have friends who do. I on the other hand had a mother and a father who raised me AND my sister in that shitty place I described eairlier in a rural county in the middle of no where in North Carolina. Also, when my sister moved down to Florida to live with her mother (we have different mothers) she lived in the slums of Leto Florida in an apartment the size of my living room with drug dealers making deals right outside her complex. She still raised her son at 16 years old. She got her GED, which is the same as a high school deploma, like I said before, and she graduated from college and she's making great money now. Guess what? My nephew is just fine and we are thankful every day that she didn't have that abortion that the doctors pushed her and pushed her to have. Please, don't try and tell me that I have no idea. I have just as much of an idea as you, if not more. I was trying not to bring personal life into this, but you crossed that line first even when you said that we shouldn't bring personal thing into debate. For that, I'll have to call you a hypocrite.

QUOTE
Tell me it's ignorant when YOU get raped. Then we can talk.

Ok, you do the same when you carry a child. Then we'll talk about abortion.

QUOTE
I see what you're saying, but the comparisons you make are absurd. How can you compare a fetus with a dog? Or how can you give the example with your sister? It's not the same thing, dear.

Sure, adoption is the much better way to go, but as I said, abortion is an option too. I think I've said this, but if -I- got pregnat, I wouldn't be able to play/perform for at least the last 3-4 months, and that would literally ruin my career. I'm not saying it's the BEST way to go - no, it isn't. But it's an option and it's available.

Since you see what I'm saying, no matter how absurd, I guess the comparisons worked. Ah, perfect! I used the dog example just to see what you'd say. You said exactly what I thought you would. So, I compare a fetus to a dog, but you're the one who thinks it's ok to kill a fetus. In that case, you shouldn't mind me putting it on a same level as a dog, correct? You obviously don't think any higher of it. I'm sure you think killing a dog for no reason is wrong, don't you?

Well, I'm glad we agree on the adoption part. At least that's something. happy.gif So you'd rather end someones future life to better your own? That's selfish. And I very seriously doubt that 3-4 months would "ruin" your career. I'm also in the music business, and I know what you mean. Stopping for 3-4 months wouldn't be a good idea, but it most certainly wouldn't ruin your career. You'd just have to start practicing again afterwards and you'd be back to normal in no time. thumbsup.gif I always wanted to play piano but I never got lessons. I play guitar and sing. Singing is huge. If you don't practice for even a week, you'll get rusty real fast.
QUOTE
Hmm. Did you also know that some pregnat women who get raped also commit suicide? What's worse - ending one "life", or two?

wacko.gif You confuse me so much. Ok, the person just said, and I have already given an article, that suicide is more likely after abortion, and you reply to that with a "Did you also know that some pregnant women who get raped also commit suicide?" Where in the world is you're logic coming from? You're right, my statement about you thinking things through is uncalled for. It wasn't true. You're spinning around in circles. You said the same exact thing they said, but twisted it around to support your idea. According you your statement, if the woman gets raped and then has an abortion, that almost doubles her chances of committing suicide, wouldn't you say? You just enforced my argument even more. Thank you.


forza, I don't wear panties. mellow.gif Most guys don't. You may want to look into that.

I have been here a lot longer then you have, so please don't try and explain anything about the rules or what people have already said. I've been saying this debate is pointless from the beginning. Had you actually read through the previous thread like the rules say, you would've realized that. That's rule #3, in red. I'm just arguing with Angelina Taylor because she actually has a good, valid argument.

And if you think that was a personal attack, you obviously haven't been here very long. You mentioned my name first and proceeded by saying I was bound to fail, so I replied. In no way did I "attack" you. I'm sorry if my reply embarrassed you a bit, but that's no reason to make outrageous claims. happy.gif

QUOTE
Ahem, you cannot compare a fetus living off of the mother to us living off of say a respirator. Uhh we at least have the ability to live on our own, while a fetus has absolutely no chance. Invent a machine that can carry a two month old fetus around..then we'll talk. It is a part of the mother because it depends on the mother. Maybe not by definition of the word, but they are sharing the same food, air, water, and are connected. Now I don't know about you..but to me it seems like they're a part of one another.


Angelina Taylor already made that argument, so see my reply, read the article, and read the Debate Rules #3. It's written in red.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 19 2006, 07:03 PM

I'm sorry, but I really can't take anything you say seriously seeing as you're a guy. You don't know and never will know what it is like to be pregnant. So...frankly everything YOU say is irrelevant.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 19 2006, 07:21 PM

^ Wow, that has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever read on cB. I hope everyone, pro-life or pro-choice agrees with me.

Have you ever been pregnant? If not, that means everything you say is also irrelevant. Not only did you just say that to me, but you also said that to any guy who has ever debated about abortion. If you have no other way to make an argument but that, then please, exit stage left. It has no point and is sure ignorance.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 19 2006, 07:35 PM

^I don't exactly think you have the right to claim it as 'the most ignorant thing you have ever read on cb'. I mean come on, I have read some pretty ignorant statements. And no, it is not just me. In my english class last year we had a pretty heated debate over abortion and the majority of the class agreed that they don't believe males have any right to discuss it. It is impossible for then to imagine what it is like. And although I have never been pregnant myself I can still imagine it. I can still imagine all of the different scenarios in which it could have happened. I can picture how it would affect my life, and you cannot. And you never will be able to. Because once again. You cannot have children thus giving you even less of a right to tell other people what to do with theirs.

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 19 2006, 07:52 PM

^ Last I checked, it was the fathers child too.

Ok, so you can still imagine it. Being a male, I've never been pregnant either, but I can imagine what it's like just as well as you can. If you had read my post, you'd see that I have had several accounts with the situation in my family and among my friends.

You seem to think that just because I'm male means that I don't have any clue. That is where the ignorance lies. In case you forgot, men helped legalize abortion. So I guess their opinions were irrelevant too, huh? Of course not, because those men supported your opinion. rolleyes.gif Even so, you should still read my posts and opinion with an open mind, not just shut it out because of my gender. That is very narrow minded. Just because you can't make an argument against mine doesn't mean you should just shut mine out.

Posted by: forza Jul 19 2006, 08:24 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 19 2006, 6:58 PM) *
I have been here a lot longer then you have, so please don't try and explain anything about the rules or what people have already said. I've been saying this debate is pointless from the beginning. Had you actually read through the previous thread like the rules say, you would've realized that. That's rule #3, in red. I'm just arguing with Angelina Taylor because she actually has a good, valid argument.

And if you think that was a personal attack, you obviously haven't been here very long. You mentioned my name first and proceeded by saying I was bound to fail, so I replied. In no way did I "attack" you. I'm sorry if my reply embarrassed you a bit, but that's no reason to make outrageous claims. happy.gif


If you'd like to tell me that I didn't read the entire post, let me point out to you the fallacies in your comprehensions skills. I said this:

QUOTE
I feel that you're an idealist trying to woo the staunch, immobile realists that dwell in this forum, iRock cB..


You apparently missed the point with this reply:

QUOTE
Well unfortunately, forza, you've fallen victim to the "judge others before you know them" trait. Unlike you, I do not see this as a battle of wits. I'm not trying to "woo" anyone, especially on a pathetic online forum with people who I will most likely never meet. You people's opinion means pretty much nothing to me, but I still am respectful and read what you have to say, just as you should with what I have to say. These are my ideas and my opinions that I express. There is no way to "fail" in that. Just because you disagree with my idea doesn't make it wrong or right because, frankly, who are you? You're a nobody to me, as I probably am to you. I actually pity the fact that you see this as some kind of battle that can only result in victory or failure. We're merely just stating our opinions in an intelligent manner. If you have nothing more intelligent to post then the ignorance you have just posted, I suggest you stay out. Please, don't waste our time.


All I was doing was reaffirming your idealistic approach to the abortion issue (in other words, your opinion). You point out that rather than abortion, women should raise their babies at all cost. That's idealistic. You think that rather than aborting a fetus, it should be given up for adoption after birth. That's idealistic. You evidently overlook the social conditions that warrant the necessity of abortion at times in your persistence that it is never necessary. That's idealistic. I never "judged you before I knew you." I don't have to know you to understand that you're an idealist on the subject of abortion.

And to top it all off, you don't see what you're doing as a "battle of wits." If you don't think this forum's purpose is to gain victory or to fail, you mustn't understand the definition of debate. In a debate, there is always a winner and a loser. Eventually, the abortion debate will end with one side winning, one side losing (as things develop). For now, this is a stalemate and we're left only to dish out our opinions on things, which is highly frowned upon here (so I can't understand why this topic is still open).

Yet, as I continue to skim through your posts, I find more and more derogatory remarks, and a good mass of holier-than-thou bullshit, intended, as you say, only to continue argumentation (while you inadvertently offend everyone in your path).

You continuously patronize people, pointing out petty spelling errors and lapses in syntax. You found it quite necessary to put in bold the 'n' in pregnant. Do you feel better after putting someone down like that? And you insist that Angelina Taylor can't participate in a debate about American issues simply because she's from another country. In that case, I suggest that all the mods close down any topics on foreign politics, poverty, culture, etc. We don't know anything about, or experience it every day, therefore we shouldn't talk about it.

Okay, so you've been here longer than I have, but in no way does that put you in a position to run off at the mouth the way you have. I could waste my time pointing out your flaws. For instance, you don't seem to understand the difference between/uses of "than" and "then":

QUOTE
I have been here a lot longer then you have


But, like you said, this is just a "pathetic online forum," why get so worked up about it? The only thing that's apparent to me in this cloudy, neverending debate is your ignorance and hypocrisy, because you sure do treat this as a "battle of wits." You're being defensive as though if anyone tramples on your territory it's the end of the world as you know it.

This is an e-Hardass at its finest, ladies and gentlemen. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 19 2006, 08:36 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 19 2006, 5:52 PM) *
^ Last I checked, it was the fathers child too.

Ok, so you can still imagine it. Being a male, I've never been pregnant either, but I can imagine what it's like just as well as you can. If you had read my post, you'd see that I have had several accounts with the situation in my family and among my friends.

You seem to think that just because I'm male means that I don't have any clue. That is where the ignorance lies. In case you forgot, men helped legalize abortion. So I guess their opinions were irrelevant too, huh? Of course not, because those men supported your opinion. rolleyes.gif Even so, you should still read my posts and opinion with an open mind, not just shut it out because of my gender. That is very narrow minded. Just because you can't make an argument against mine doesn't mean you should just shut mine out.



Don't ever make the mistake that I can't make an argument ever again. Pretty much nothing you say can make me believe abortion is wrong. No one has the authority to decide what is right for each individual. It is an individual choice and that is all there is to it.

Posted by: rawtheekuh. Jul 19 2006, 08:36 PM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 19 2006, 7:52 PM) *
^ Last I checked, it was the fathers child too.

Ok, so you can still imagine it. Being a male, I've never been pregnant either, but I can imagine what it's like just as well as you can. If you had read my post, you'd see that I have had several accounts with the situation in my family and among my friends.

Even so, you should still read my posts and opinion with an open mind, not just shut it out because of my gender.


That's just the thing, though. No one, not even I, can imagine what it's like to be pregnant if they are not pregnant. This is not a question of whether it is the father's child or not, it is a question of what is best for the woman and her body. The male is not the one getting the abortion. If the woman is in a relationship, sure, she should speak to the father about it if she has a relationship with him, but the father should respect what the woman wants.

Why? Because it's her body and her choice.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 19 2006, 08:43 PM

^^ Agreed. And I mean come on...from what I see your girlfriend isn't pregnant or anything. So...why are you so against it? What gives you the right to decide for a complete stranger what is best for her?

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 19 2006, 09:35 PM

number one- we don't give a shit about your opinion.

which is why, when you said "i'm just expressing my opinion", i assumed you didn't read the first post.

what abortion comes down to is not morality, if the feotus is alive, or anything like that.

what is comes down to is choice.

notice how cleverly the sides are named.

pro choice, and pro life.

pro choice makes sense. pro life is a cloaking. since the two are opposites, let's name it what it is.

anti choice.

so we have pro choice, and anti choice.

now, you're probably saying, that's not fair, why change pro life?

well, because if you don't change pro life, you get anti-life and pro life.

now, the pro choice side is not advocating abortion. they're not saying kill all babies. so the anti life label doens't work.

anti choice, however, is very accurate.

on one hand, you have one group advocating choice. thier platform is: let each woman choose for herself. she who wants an abortion can get one, and she who does not want an abortion does not have to get one. each woman can decide, for herself, based on her beliefs.

if the pro choice side wins, christans can not have abortions all they want.

however, pro life is anything but postive. as anti choice, they're a group who has decided that they are morally right, and that everyone else should follow thier beliefs.

now you may say, well, why isn't murder legal then. some may think it's not immoral.

well, there aren't arguements about whether murder is moral or not. there aren't two sides endlessly debating it.

with abortion, there are. people dissagree in large numbers. which is why it makes sense to allow each the choice, rather than force one choice upon everyone.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 19 2006, 10:20 PM

Wow. First of all, I live in Canada. I don't live in the US, you say. Yeah, but I still live in North America. I will argue because I have an opinion. It's the same thing as saying, "You're male - don't participate, because you're not the one getting the abortion". So as long as you believe that while being male you can debate on this issue, then so can I.

Ugh, the "quote" thing doesn't work, so I'll just highlight what you've said in red.

I'm not going in circles, dear. I'm simply responding to what YOU've said.

[quote name='iRock cB' date='Jul 19 2006, 7:58 PM' post='2164850']
Do you know what it's like to raise a child? If you don't, then why even ask that? It's quite hypocritical if you haven't. [/quote]


Yes, I actually do. When I was 8, my cousin was born and I've had to take care of her ever since. For long periods of time.

[quote]My sister, as I've said before, had her baby at 16 and she is a single mom and for a long while, had no job. Now my family is not rich at all but we still did the best we could to raise him, and we still try our best even today. [/quote]

Kudos to you and your family, but you gotta know - not all families are there for each other. And not everyone has the strength to do it. Sometimes people fail. Just because you succeeded doesn't mean all people do.

[quote]I never said you didn't base my arguments on what I've said, but when I have already answered something and you go right back and say it again, that gets old fast and makes me think you're desperate to find an argument. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are, but that's just how it comes across. [/quote]

Hmm, really? Can you give me specific examples? I do repeat myself sometimes, but that's because you've failed to respond/outargue my points.

[quote]I never said you were stupid. Did you even comprehend what I said?[/quote]

HAHAHA okay, buddy. Your personal thoughts about other members are not needed here, honestly. I never said that you said I was stupid. But look what you did. Oh well - this is getting dumb.

Let's, as you said earlier, not beat the dead horse anymore, what do you think? I'll just say this again: sometimes it's obvious that the child will not have a life you'd want it to lead. Be it financial issues, personal issues, family desertion, desertion of the father, unemployment, whatever. I get what you're saying, but obviously you have your beliefs and I have mine, so it's pretty much pointless to continue.

[quote] Let's not turn this into a pity party, ok? I'm sorry you lived in poor conditions, I really am, but guess what? My mother had my baby sister during those times, and we made it just fine. Don't start throwing around excuses. [/quote]
As I already said, not all families are like yours. You've been fortunate. But not all people are. I guess it's hard to realize it.

[quote]Let me ask you this. Do YOU know what it's like to be pregnant? Please, don't be hypocritical. It's one of the two things I hate in life. Hypocrisy and ignorance. And, darling, we're here to discuss abortion in America, ok? Not Bulgaria. [/quote]

Hmm. I guess I didn't read the part where it said "America", so sorry about that. But I'll still debate. And on another note - I don't know what it's like to be pregnat yet, but I WILL experience it, so I have respect for it, and I kind of do have the right to bring it up as apoint. You're a guy - you will never know.

[quote] And before you go saying that my teacher was pro-life, he wasn't. He's an atheist and pro-choice. So, you're pretty much calling my information false. Mind backing that up with some facts? If you can doubt my information that came right down from a trained professional who went to college to major in biology, surely I can doubt yours. So, go ahead, prove it. [/quote]

Okay, buddy, you're getting a little ahead of yourself. Did I ever say I doubted your information? I don't think I did. And which points exactly do you want me to back up? I'd be happy to.

[quote]And actually, if you'd like to get scientific, identical twins have different phenotypes. That means the same DNA is expressed in different ways, therefore, it's not identical. To a DNA test, yes, but the genes in twins are different. If twins had the exact same DNA and genetic code, like parts of a body do, they would have the same set of finger prints. But, they don't. Wow, and I never thought biology/physical science class would come in handy! I'd like you to read an article: Fetus Found Alive. That baby was only 7 and a half months old in the womb. According to you, that would be fully dependant on it's mother. She is still alive today. It's actually been proven. This wasn't a freak event. If you're skeptical, look it up. I'm not wasting my time. [/quote]

Um a 7 and a half months old fetus can survive. Some people actually give birth around that time, if something goes wrong. The normal legal limit for abortion is 24 weeks.. that's under 7 months. So this is not arguable.

[quote]Ok, seriously, did you even read my entire post? What I bolded in your quote was the exact same thing I said, you're just trying to use it to attribute to your argument. And again, that looks like you're running out of things to argue.[/quote]

You want new things to argue? Okay.

Abortion is not wrong because it's not murder. Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. A fetus is not a human being - it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being.

Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there isn't such a thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being against the will of that person.

[quote]I was trying not to bring personal life into this, but you crossed that line first even when you said that we shouldn't bring personal thing into debate. For that, I'll have to call you a hypocrite. [/quote]

I meant emotion. Not personal LIFE. It's like in poker - leave emotion at the door. In this case, just leave emotion out of it. That means no personal attacks. Of course we can give examples from experiences.. that's called evidence.


[quote]Since you see what I'm saying, no matter how absurd, I guess the comparisons worked. Ah, perfect! I used the dog example just to see what you'd say. You said exactly what I thought you would. So, I compare a fetus to a dog, but you're the one who thinks it's ok to kill a fetus. In that case, you shouldn't mind me putting it on a same level as a dog, correct? You obviously don't think any higher of it. I'm sure you think killing a dog for no reason is wrong, don't you?[/quote]

I was surprised that you compared it to a dog, because you believe abortion is wrong. I see what you're saying, and killing a dog for no reason is wrong, but people don't have abortions for no reason.

[quote] So you'd rather end someones future life to better your own? That's selfish. And I very seriously doubt that 3-4 months would "ruin" your career. I'm also in the music business, and I know what you mean. Stopping for 3-4 months wouldn't be a good idea, but it most certainly wouldn't ruin your career. You'd just have to start practicing again afterwards and you'd be back to normal in no time. [/quote]

Actually, it would because my level would drop drastically. Trust me, I know this. I once didn't play for a week, and my technique was just.. awful after. 3-4 months are fatal. And by the way it's not selfish, because the fetus would be a part of me. It's my body, and it's my right to decide what I do with it. It's not yours, nor the governments'. I've said this before -placing a fetus' rights above a woman's is wrong.

To give a fetus "rights" superior to a pregnant woman is to eradicate the woman's right to her body. The principle here is: any right that contradicts the right of another cannot be a right, as rights form an integrated whole. A woman is not a breeding pig.

It's safe to say that you won't change your opinion, and I won't either. So pretty much, we're wasting our time here. How about we quit soon? Because all we're doing is debating on personal beliefs. Which is never good.

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 20 2006, 12:47 AM

sadolakced acid I don't give a shit about your opinions

Posted by: forza Jul 20 2006, 12:50 AM

^ No one gives a shit about anyone's opinion. This is the DEBATE forum, we like FACTS.

That is all.

Posted by: Mells-Star Jul 20 2006, 12:54 AM

^^^ Yer Der I no I was jus expressing my own opinion does't concern u

Posted by: forza Jul 20 2006, 01:27 AM

QUOTE(Mells-Star @ Jul 20 2006, 12:54 AM) *
^^^ Yer Der I no I was jus expressing my own opinion does't concern u


I thought I made it pretty clear that opinions aren't welcomed in this subforum. _dry.gif

EDIT// This smiley is more appropriate.

hammer.gif

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 20 2006, 01:59 AM

what's with you people and opinions?

don't you get it? you are no one. no one cares what you think. if president bush were on this forum, then we might care.

but you? me? we are nobodies. so we must stick to the facts.

deal with it.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 20 2006, 09:27 AM

By the way, I really don't want to continue this - it's pointless. A waste of time. No one will convince anyone otherwise, because we're so damn stubborn. So that's it for me.. I quit.

Posted by: rawtheekuh. Jul 20 2006, 12:21 PM

Mells-Star:

http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=63846 before posting in here. It clearly says to back up your opinions with facts, which you have not been doing. We don't just want you to say "ABORTION IS WRONG!!!111," we want you to show and/or tell us why. Because it's a debate. And as good debators, we have the right to reaffirm what you say or disprove it with even more facts. _smile.gif If you want to express your opinion without facts, go to a different forum please. But if you have facts, you are more than welcome to join us here.

My post is an example of a good debate post. Why? Because I linked to a thread showing why I thought you weren't posting here properly. And I gave you a semi-intelligent response in addition to that.

Posted by: disco infiltrator Jul 21 2006, 11:19 AM

QUOTE(Mells-Star @ Jul 20 2006, 12:54 AM) *
^^^ Yer Der I no I was jus expressing my own opinion does't concern u


That's not what the Debate forum is for. If you try doing this again, you'll recieve a verbal warning. Please read the rules.

Posted by: I Shot JFK Jul 21 2006, 11:22 AM

It REALLY frustrates me that the paper a couple of days ago has a number of interesting statistis about teen mothers which could hav ebeen used to refute some of Angelina's points

if only the recycling came on saturdays, not thrusdays... sigh.

research mode it is, then

Posted by: disco infiltrator Jul 21 2006, 11:32 AM

I don't really think the main question in this debate is whether it is right to killing a living human being; we all know it's not, but rather, is a fetus considered living? If not from conception, from what point?

I don't think that a fetus is really a full-fledged human until 21 days after conception, and most abortions are before that point unless the birth would be a danger to the mother or any other exceptional case. One could say, "The fetus still feels things!" but I really don't think that should come into play. It hurts an animal when you hit it with a car and we don't arrest every person who does that. Why? The animal cannot comprehend how he is being hurt or even what being hurt means. You didn't try to hurt the animal when you ran it over. Mothers don't try to hurt fetuses either.

Posted by: I Shot JFK Jul 21 2006, 11:39 AM

well, you say they dont try to hurt them, but they DO deliberately set out to have them destroyed.

which is where it differs from hitting an animal with a car.

and i totally agree that the main cause for debate is the humanity of the fetus, but that is something which it is difficult to debate factually, and lends itself to opinion, e.g. 'I don't think that a fetus is really a full-fledged human until 21 days after conception', which is valid, but isnt useful for debate, as it can be refuted with equal validity by saying, i DO think a fetus is a fully fledged human being before 21 days'

oh, and i just noticed something, did you mean 21 weeks?

Posted by: disco infiltrator Jul 21 2006, 01:11 PM

Yes I did.

And, I've before posted this humongous post contianing factual information (such as the biological requirements for life) a year ago in the other thread, but I can't find it....
I was just waiting for someone to refute me and tell me it begins at conception for sure until I busted that out again.

Posted by: I Shot JFK Jul 21 2006, 01:13 PM

oh good, because i suddenly registered that it seemed odd.

Posted by: baby_in_blue Jul 21 2006, 04:11 PM

i think its the womans choice.. however i also think that it is as much pain to have the abortion than to have it. pinch.gif

Posted by: smallsXalmighty Jul 21 2006, 04:17 PM

I think it is the womans choice if she wants to or if she has a medical condition that makes it almost impossible for her to give birth

Posted by: iRock cB Jul 21 2006, 11:46 PM

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 20 2006, 10:27 AM) *
By the way, I really don't want to continue this - it's pointless. A waste of time. No one will convince anyone otherwise, because we're so damn stubborn. So that's it for me.. I quit.

Aw man, I just got back from my 2 day vacation at the beach lol. I guess it's pointless to reply to you. I agree with you though. Thanks for being a good sport and not getting all pissed like some people.

I think it's pointless too. Both sides have really good arguments but nobody will change their mind. I've been enlightened on a few issues, but my opinion still stands, and I'll leave it at that.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 22 2006, 08:03 AM

QUOTE(iRock cB @ Jul 22 2006, 12:46 AM) *
Aw man, I just got back from my 2 day vacation at the beach lol. I guess it's pointless to reply to you. I agree with you though. Thanks for being a good sport and not getting all pissed like some people.

I think it's pointless too. Both sides have really good arguments but nobody will change their mind. I've been enlightened on a few issues, but my opinion still stands, and I'll leave it at that.


Yeah, after "debating" with that guy in the other thread, it was just the same thing all over. You're probably the only person who debated properly. See ya

Posted by: ChaosPunx Jul 22 2006, 10:43 AM

I support it because i think its the womens choice if she wants the baby or not. People who dont support it should just worry about themselves not others.If you think its killing someone than dont do it. Let them get the end results.

Posted by: ECD & C0 Jul 23 2006, 01:38 PM

QUOTE
What is it that gives an unborn child more value than the freedom a woman has over her body?


the baby is alive and helpless the mother is required to take resposiblility for what is haping to her body. rape or not its her job to give birth to it then she can give it up for adoption.

Posted by: Acid Bath Slayer Jul 23 2006, 02:06 PM

QUOTE(ECD & C0 @ Jul 23 2006, 1:38 PM) *
the baby is alive and helpless the mother is required to take resposiblility for what is haping to her body. rape or not its her job to give birth to it then she can give it up for adoption.


An animal is alive and helpless, however they have no right to life. So, the qualities of being alive and helpless do not exactly equate a right to life, or any rights for that matter. I would argue that a fetus is so impersonal, worthless, and so little sentient that it is not much unlike a common animal. In fact, in many cases, the common animal is far more human-like than a fetus. Just as I have no ill feelings in knowing that animals are killed for the convienence and comfort of specific types of food, I have no ill feelings in knowing that unborn children are being aborted at the will of their mother. Until that child is born, our society has no real way to recognize it as having personhood and rights with it. Once the child is born, the mother takes a legal obligation towards its well-being, this is meaningful and useful. However, forcing a mother to treat an unborn child as if it were a full-fledged person, just like you or I, is inherently rediculous as the unborn child is so little like you or I.

Posted by: kryogenix Jul 23 2006, 06:38 PM

QUOTE(forza @ Jul 16 2006, 5:24 AM) *
Like I said in the other thread: this is a dead horse that needs respite -- badly.

But to answer the question posed: no, abortion should not be outlawed, for two reasons:

1) Realism: abortions are necessary at times. I don't like the idea of terminating a potential human being, but I don't like the idea of a baby having a baby even worse. How successful is a newborn with a 15 year old mother from the slums expected to be? If you can justify forcibly ruining several lives for the sake of your beliefs (of which almost 100% derive from your religion), I've lost faith in this society's capacity to use common sense.

2) Litigation's sake: we have to uphold the validity of Supreme Court decisions at all costs. Sure, we review/question them all the time, but rarely do we overturn them. To do this would be to undermine the very foundation upon which our justice system resides. We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have).


1) Two wrongs do not make a right. Not having access isn't what ruins someone's life, it's having underage sex that does.

2) Saying "Well, if we overturn a Supreme Court decision, we'll look stupid" doesn't really fly. If a mistake was made, it must be fixed, not swept under the rug and ignored.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 23 2006, 08:24 PM

america is not the land of the moral high ground. it's the land of the free.

ergo, we should uphold the freedom to choose an abortion, rather than the morality of denying it.

Posted by: ThatBrokenGirl. Jul 23 2006, 08:31 PM

One word.
Adopiton.
Its better than killing a Human Being.ermm.gif
I bet u if that baby could talk, It would just rather Get put in the adoption system,
and then look on the bright side. when you get older you will see the Baby. so whats the point of kiiling it.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 23 2006, 08:37 PM

^ Um the fetus isn't a human being in the period when a woman can get an abortion. And it's not murder, because murder is killing a human being through the use/initiation of physical force. Seeing how it's just a potential human being, I don't see your argument.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 23 2006, 08:43 PM

banning abortions isn't really a life changing event for me, but it's more of the principle.

if you want to ban abortions, then sex ed should be taught in 6th grade, and condom machines avalible in all bathrooms middle school and onwards.

okay, the second part maybe not so much. but you do know people that take virginity pledges are more likely to have unsafe sex thier first time?

kids need to be educated beyond "don't do it till you're married". becuase that doesn't work.

Posted by: forza Jul 24 2006, 02:11 AM

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Jul 23 2006, 6:38 PM) *
2) Saying "Well, if we overturn a Supreme Court decision, we'll look stupid" doesn't really fly. If a mistake was made, it must be fixed, not swept under the rug and ignored.

And I quote:
QUOTE
We can't compromise the power of the Supreme Court without titanium proof of its necessity (which we don't have).

If this debate is continuing to drone on and drone on, it is because neither side can really prove the other one wrong. Yet, in 1973, a group of justices who were much more qualified than you and I to decide, through logistics, legality, and experience whether legalizing abortions was plausible or not, decided (7-2) for us that it is the right of the woman to terminate a pregnancy. Who are we to say that they were wrong? Imminent jurists like Harry Blackmun, William O. Douglas...

My favorite kicker is that it was decided well into the term of one of the more established conservatives the presidency has ever seen.

So, I'll reiterate one more time: unless the sun sits at high noon on our doubt, the Supreme Court's decision must always stand.

Posted by: I Shot JFK Jul 24 2006, 11:15 AM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 24 2006, 2:43 AM) *
banning abortions isn't really a life changing event for me, but it's more of the principle.

if you want to ban abortions, then sex ed should be taught in 6th grade, and condom machines avalible in all bathrooms middle school and onwards.

okay, the second part maybe not so much. but you do know people that take virginity pledges are more likely to have unsafe sex thier first time?

kids need to be educated beyond "don't do it till you're married". becuase that doesn't work.

and furthermore, although admittedly i dont remember my source, 93% of virginity pledges are broken.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 24 2006, 01:29 PM

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 20 2006, 7:27 AM) *
By the way, I really don't want to continue this - it's pointless. A waste of time. No one will convince anyone otherwise, because we're so damn stubborn. So that's it for me.. I quit.



Me too. As much as everyone keeps saying that 'THIS IS THE DEBATE FORUM! NO OPINIONS!!!1111' well this is an argument that cannot be had without opinions. The facts have been put out there. All of them. Now it is up to individuals to decide what they believe and what they don't. What is the point of continuing this thread if they keep getting scolded each time they do this. According to the facts I myself have decided that I will remain pro-choice. But for now, I leave it up to you.

Posted by: ECD & C0 Jul 24 2006, 05:44 PM

QUOTE
n animal is alive and helpless, however they have no right to life. So, the qualities of being alive and helpless do not exactly equate a right to life, or any rights for that matter. I would argue that a fetus is so impersonal, worthless, and so little sentient that it is not much unlike a common animal. In fact, in many cases, the common animal is far more human-like than a fetus. Just as I have no ill feelings in knowing that animals are killed for the convienence and comfort of specific types of food, I have no ill feelings in knowing that unborn children are being aborted at the will of their mother. Until that child is born, our society has no real way to recognize it as having personhood and rights with it. Once the child is born, the mother takes a legal obligation towards its well-being, this is meaningful and useful. However, forcing a mother to treat an unborn child as if it were a full-fledged person, just like you or I, is inherently rediculous as the unborn child is so little lile you or I.


wtf a fetus is not worthless, and animals do have a right to life a fetus is a non developed person

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 24 2006, 05:45 PM

QUOTE(ECD & C0 @ Jul 24 2006, 6:44 PM) *
wtf a fetus is not worthless, and animals do have a right to life a fetus is a non developed person


How do they have a right to live? Animals don't have rights.

Posted by: Endless_Symphony Jul 25 2006, 12:38 AM

after replying more times than i can count, i have been exhausted on this topic. obviously, many people here have strong beliefs and leave little room to be swayed.

most people are arguing that it is wrong and that it hurts the babies.

what about this? while many pro-life people focus on undeveloped fetuses, the world has millions of children in dire need of care and love. however, they are neglected for children who have yet to exist. people advocate adoption. many pro-life people are good, solid christian couples who have moderate income. why don't they start adopting? i'm sure that while they shout from the rooftops that adoption is the way to go, a majority of them have failed to go adopt the many 'saved' children.

millions of children are starving, dying from disease, and living in war torn countries.

take care of them before you worry about fetuses who are missing hearts, lungs, and spinal cords.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 25 2006, 08:20 PM

Alright I know I said I was done, but hey apparently I am not so stronged willed. First of all ^^^ AMEN! There are tons of other children, LIVING FULLY DEVELOPED humans that need our care.


and also,

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 24 2006, 3:45 PM) *
How do they have a right to live? Animals don't have rights.



WTFTWTFTWTFTWTF. Who are you to decide which life on this earth has the RIGHT to be here? Of course they have a right, or else well they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It is all the same with abortion. People think that they are oh so powerful and get to go around deciding who gets to live and die. But just as in an animals case, that is the animals own right, as it is the mothers.

Posted by: Endless_Symphony Jul 25 2006, 10:08 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 25 2006, 9:20 PM) *
WTFTWTFTWTFTWTF. Who are you to decide which life on this earth has the RIGHT to be here? Of course they have a right, or else well they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It is all the same with abortion. People think that they are oh so powerful and get to go around deciding who gets to live and die. But just as in an animals case, that is the animals own right, as it is the mothers.


it is true that nothing on this world has the right to live. as most westernized civilizations have taught, the right to live is a natural born right and is even listed as so in UN regulataions. however, in other countries, these rights are never guaranteed by the government.

only those who are lucky enough to be born in a developed, western country, have undenible rights to live. in other places, you have to fend for yourself and pray that whatever the government's whim is, it doesn't involve your death.

animal rights are defined by humans. i'm pretty sure if animals could discern rights, it's view of freedom and rights is very different from ours.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 26 2006, 01:21 AM

we are all so powerful. we do get to decide who lives or not (when we talk about animals)

why are dogs pets and cows food? because we choose so.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 26 2006, 09:01 AM

I think the overall problem in both arguments is that we think too much of ourselves. We need to stop choosing for every other life form on this planet i.e. unborn babies and choose for our own selves.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 26 2006, 09:26 AM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 25 2006, 9:20 PM) *
WTFTWTFTWTFTWTF. Who are you to decide which life on this earth has the RIGHT to be here? Of course they have a right, or else well they wouldn't be alive in the first place. It is all the same with abortion. People think that they are oh so powerful and get to go around deciding who gets to live and die. But just as in an animals case, that is the animals own right, as it is the mothers.


Are you kidding me? You honestly think animals have "rights"? Let me tell you what rights are:

QUOTE
Rights are scientific, moral principles that guarantee freedom of action in a social context. The source of an individual's right to life is one's nature as a rational being. Rights are requirements necessary for an individual to live as a rational being (human) in a society of men.


Only human beings have rights. Do you think ants have rights? Butterflies? Bees? Fish? Animals don't have rights. Trees are "life", but they do not have rights.

And humans are "oh so powerful". We do decide who gets to live and die - you eat meat, don't you? (well, unless you're a vegetarian)

Posted by: msladyliberty Jul 26 2006, 04:44 PM

I like Endless Symphony's arguments.

Abortion should be LEGAL.



I don't think it's fair for society to make abortion illegal.


Our Society is trying to improve. We can't have children being born to unfit mothers who cannot physically, mentally, or financially provide for them. Here we are as a society, complaining about higher taxes and more developed crimes among our youths. Many children are suffering from having an unhealthy upbringing.

How can we improve society when we allow children an unfit childhood to parents who can't support them or nurture the life that they need.

It's not fair to the children and it's not fair to society.

That's why SAFE SEX is campaigned! ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES and condoms are being handed out in schools.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 27 2006, 10:23 PM

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 26 2006, 7:26 AM) *
Are you kidding me? You honestly think animals have "rights"? Let me tell you what rights are:
Only human beings have rights. Do you think ants have rights? Butterflies? Bees? Fish? Animals don't have rights. Trees are "life", but they do not have rights.

And humans are "oh so powerful". We do decide who gets to live and die - you eat meat, don't you? (well, unless you're a vegetarian)



I believe that everything born into life has that right. The only reason I think abortion is alright is because I do not think it is alive. I hate how people think we are so great, and I am sorry if that in any way offends you but I myself respect all forms of life.



And no..I do not eat meat.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 28 2006, 11:09 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 27 2006, 11:23 PM) *
I believe that everything born into life has that right. The only reason I think abortion is alright is because I do not think it is alive. I hate how people think we are so great, and I am sorry if that in any way offends you but I myself respect all forms of life.
And no..I do not eat meat.


You can believe what you want.. it doesn't matter. It won't make it a fact. It's not true to say that they DO have rights. They don't. There's a difference between belief and reality.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 29 2006, 02:17 AM

^ let her believe what she will.

you can believe what you want, and she can believe what she wants. don't impose your belief on her.

yes, this is debate, and the point is to clash beliefs. but each in thier own thread. animal rights has it's thread, i believe.

as far as i'm concerned, rights are relatated to the domain of overt subjectivity- something that is too much rooted in belief and opinion to be debatable, like religion. there just aren't enough facts that deal with rights- it all comes down to semantics.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 29 2006, 01:19 PM

I did leave her to believe what she wanted to believe. People believe things. I may believe that I'm the world's greatest pianist. Doesn't mean I am, does it? I'm not sure you understood the point I was trying to make.

It's a fact that not all living things have rights. Humans have rights because we survive by reason. Ants or trees, however, do not.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 29 2006, 04:53 PM

For you to say that I am completely incorrect is a little much. If you were to say brake into your neighbors back yard and murder their dog I don't think that they would accept 'Well it was an animal and it doesn't have the right to live and me being a human gives me the right to kill it' Ummmm no. And yes I know there is an animals rights section but this sort of relates to that in a way that some people consider an unborn child as equal as say an animal. But again...


QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 29 2006, 12:17 AM) *
as far as i'm concerned, rights are relatated to the domain of overt subjectivity- something that is too much rooted in belief and opinion to be debatable, like religion. there just aren't enough facts that deal with rights- it all comes down to semantics.




This argument as well as the animals rights one all comes back to this. Now can we agree to disagree or can we not?

Posted by: rawtheekuh. Jul 29 2006, 05:11 PM

QUOTE
If you were to say brake into your neighbors back yard and murder their dog I don't think that they would accept 'Well it was an animal and it doesn't have the right to live and me being a human gives me the right to kill it' Ummmm no.


Yes, but that dog did not belong to the neighbor. That dog's owner did not want his dog to die. That's why it was wrong to kill the dog. Not because it has rights, but because the neighbor killed the dog out of malicious intent. Abortions, however, are not done out of malicious intent. The fetus is technically not a life, therefore, it does not have rights. The mother should have the right to do what she feels is right with her body, because she is a human being and she has an understanding of what a right is.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 29 2006, 05:11 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 29 2006, 5:53 PM) *
For you to say that I am completely incorrect is a little much. If you were to say brake into your neighbors back yard and murder their dog I don't think that they would accept 'Well it was an animal and it doesn't have the right to live and me being a human gives me the right to kill it' Ummmm no. And yes I know there is an animals rights section but this sort of relates to that in a way that some people consider an unborn child as equal as say an animal.


That's true, but the dog would belong to the owners. That's why it wouldn't be ok. You wouldn't get in that much trouble killing a homeless dog. (by the way, I've seen none in North America.. but back in Europe they're on the streets everywhere)

I too believe they should have rights because they're alive, but they just don't.

Hmm. I don't think people can compare an animal with an unborn child (especially in the early years of the pregnancy)..

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 29 2006, 05:47 PM

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 29 2006, 3:11 PM) *
That's true, but the dog would belong to the owners. That's why it wouldn't be ok. You wouldn't get in that much trouble killing a homeless dog. (by the way, I've seen none in North America.. but back in Europe they're on the streets everywhere)

I too believe they should have rights because they're alive, but they just don't.

Hmm. I don't think people can compare an animal with an unborn child (especially in the early years of the pregnancy)..




We have our fair share of homeless dogs in america. And saying that you wouldn't get into that much trouble for killing a homeless dog is completely untrue. We have animal rights laws thus animals DO have rights. Ever heard of animal abuse? ASPCA? Yes, they are there to protect their right to not be harmed. People have gone to jail for many years for abusing animals and although it may not be as serious as hurting a human it still is true.


Now, on the abortion issue. You guys seem to be getting confused on what side I am on. I am pro-choice and I do think that the unborn child is not technically alive yet so it is okay to abort it in the right circumstances. And I think that the mother has the right to determine what those circumstances may be.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 29 2006, 07:39 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 29 2006, 6:47 PM) *
We have our fair share of homeless dogs in america. And saying that you wouldn't get into that much trouble for killing a homeless dog is completely untrue. We have animal rights laws thus animals DO have rights. Ever heard of animal abuse? ASPCA? Yes, they are there to protect their right to not be harmed. People have gone to jail for many years for abusing animals and although it may not be as serious as hurting a human it still is true.

Now, on the abortion issue. You guys seem to be getting confused on what side I am on. I am pro-choice and I do think that the unborn child is not technically alive yet so it is okay to abort it in the right circumstances. And I think that the mother has the right to determine what those circumstances may be.


I know what side you're on about abortion.

And ASPCA is a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It doesn't give animals rights.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 29 2006, 09:19 PM

QUOTE(Angelina Taylor @ Jul 29 2006, 5:39 PM) *
I know what side you're on about abortion.

And ASPCA is a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. It doesn't give animals rights.



What do you think rights are? The aspca provides animals with the rights to not be harmed. Those are rights even though they aren't the same kinds we have they are rights. i.e. the right to LIVE, which was our initial argument.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 29 2006, 09:43 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 29 2006, 4:53 PM) *
.
This argument as well as the animals rights one all comes back to this. Now can we agree to disagree or can we not?


in this topic, we can disagree about animal rights. but not in the animal rights topic. otherwise there's no debate.

Posted by: cashmere deer Jul 29 2006, 09:58 PM

...i would have though it would be the other way around, or else we'd be stuck discussing animal rights here rather than abortion.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Jul 30 2006, 09:38 PM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 29 2006, 10:19 PM) *
What do you think rights are? The aspca provides animals with the rights to not be harmed. Those are rights even though they aren't the same kinds we have they are rights. i.e. the right to LIVE, which was our initial argument.


Then what was the point of you bringing them up? They're not the kinds of rights I was referring to, but whatever. This isn't the thread for it.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Aug 2 2006, 02:14 AM

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ Jul 29 2006, 9:58 PM) *
...i would have though it would be the other way around, or else we'd be stuck discussing animal rights here rather than abortion.



i meant we can disagree peacefully here about animal rights, but in the animal rights debate, it's all out.

Posted by: xnarcotic Aug 2 2006, 04:20 AM

as much as everyone is making their points about the adoption thing, would you want to give up a child that you`ve bonded with over the 9 months it has been in your womb? a lot of people on this forum have made the idea of having an abortion easy. it isn`t. you don`t know what it`s like until you`ve been there. and i have been there. and really, i don`t care how much hate mail or anything you want to give me over it. i had to make my choice because i have medical problems, and i didn`t feel like dying over having a child. and with what everyone is saying, i`m guessing a lot of you are probably 15 or 16 without the slightest f**king clue on what REAL life is. wait until you`re stuck with a decision like this and then see how EASY it is to give a child you`ve bonded with away, or take care of that child. have fun on welfare. and have fun working 3 jobs. i hate you closed minded f**king people. riding around on your high horses like you`ve never done something bad in your life. you don`t think 99% of the people who get abortions hate what they had to do? you`re dead wrong. yeah, some people use it as a birth control method, but the people who honestly NEED it so they can live a good life don`t go a day without thinking about what they did. i know i do. not a DAY goes by without me thinking about that decision. so don`t f**king go around saying that anyone who has an abortion is a piece of shit. because if you do, you`re even more of a piece of shit than them. you ignorant fucks.

Posted by: douchebag Aug 2 2006, 04:38 AM

The prospect of killing babies is just too boneriffic to oppose. Yes, abortion should be legal in the United States.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Aug 2 2006, 10:48 AM

QUOTE(xnarcotic @ Aug 2 2006, 5:20 AM) *
as much as everyone is making their points about the adoption thing, would you want to give up a child that you`ve bonded with over the 9 months it has been in your womb? a lot of people on this forum have made the idea of having an abortion easy. it isn`t. you don`t know what it`s like until you`ve been there. and i have been there. and really, i don`t care how much hate mail or anything you want to give me over it. i had to make my choice because i have medical problems, and i didn`t feel like dying over having a child. and with what everyone is saying, i`m guessing a lot of you are probably 15 or 16 without the slightest f**king clue on what REAL life is. wait until you`re stuck with a decision like this and then see how EASY it is to give a child you`ve bonded with away, or take care of that child. have fun on welfare. and have fun working 3 jobs. i hate you closed minded f**king people. riding around on your high horses like you`ve never done something bad in your life. you don`t think 99% of the people who get abortions hate what they had to do? you`re dead wrong. yeah, some people use it as a birth control method, but the people who honestly NEED it so they can live a good life don`t go a day without thinking about what they did. i know i do. not a DAY goes by without me thinking about that decision. so don`t f**king go around saying that anyone who has an abortion is a piece of shit. because if you do, you`re even more of a piece of shit than them. you ignorant fucks.


Thank you.

Posted by: oX_Muh_Nirvana_Xo Aug 2 2006, 11:22 AM

Depends the situation. If the woman is raped. Then, Yes. The more I think about it the more I don't think I would ever do it even if I got raped. I woulden't be able to kill a baby because its not there fault. Just the thought of killing somthing makes me have chills.

Posted by: Angelina Taylor Aug 2 2006, 01:00 PM

^ Only, it's not murder because it's not a human being.. it's a potential human being. But I guess different people feel different about it.

Posted by: mznikki Oct 26 2006, 04:07 PM

i am prochoice. and it should be legal.

it always depends on their situation, i know people who have had abortions due to numerous reasons and it was the right choice for them.

gotta do an essay on this. nice to see what people's persepectives are on this topic.

Posted by: boo! grr... Oct 29 2006, 12:47 AM

It should not be illegal. Cuz it's their choice and if they want to get rid of the unborn then they go right ahead. Even if it's wrong it's still their choice. I find it selfish of the people that want to make abortion illegal. It should be made legal and the woman can make her own choice. it's not like all women would choose abortion. abortion is an option that woman can choose if she becomes pregnant. cuz if abortion is illegal the pregnant lady would have NO choic but to give birth to the baby. or even try doing an abortion themselves which could do serious harm to her body and even kill her.

Posted by: rAwritsgWeg Nov 4 2006, 03:04 AM

I hate the very Idea of it. But once again, we shall not have disorganized clutter in these forums so....Next opinion!!

Posted by: just another teenage dirtbag Nov 7 2006, 04:14 PM

i think that it should be legal because it's their choice. we shouldn't be able to chose what a women does with her body. most people that apose abortion are men. all of them will never be pregnant and therefore never even have to deal with this.

Posted by: moorepocket* Nov 14 2006, 02:02 PM

yes, it should.
If you give life to something, you should be able to take it away. That's my motto.

If my kids backstabbed me. I put them where they belong.

Posted by: kryogenix Nov 15 2006, 07:58 PM

Gotta love euphemisms. Choice sounds much better than baby killing. Partial Birth abortion sounds so much better than cracking skulls and sucking brains out with a vacuum.

Posted by: Endless_Symphony Nov 15 2006, 11:16 PM

^ actually, partial birth was a term coined by pro-LIFE supports. it's humanely disturbing to hear 'partial birth' because birth connotates being brought into this world and alive. partial makes you think that the baby only made it halfway.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Nov 16 2006, 02:04 AM

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 15 2006, 6:58 PM) *
Gotta love euphemisms. Choice sounds much better than baby killing. Partial Birth abortion sounds so much better than cracking skulls and sucking brains out with a vacuum.



pro-life is a euphemism in itself. Pro-life people aren't really pro-life. They could probably care less about lives of people in Darfur. It's a euphemism for Anti-choice, because Anti-choice just sounds to negative.

on the same note, don't argue that pro-choice is actually anti-life. pro choicers don't hate life. they want the choice, hence the name.

Posted by: kryogenix Nov 16 2006, 08:53 AM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Nov 16 2006, 2:04 AM) *
pro-life is a euphemism in itself. Pro-life people aren't really pro-life. They could probably care less about lives of people in Darfur. It's a euphemism for Anti-choice, because Anti-choice just sounds to negative.

on the same note, don't argue that pro-choice is actually anti-life. pro choicers don't hate life. they want the choice, hence the name.


That's quite a blanket statement. And I wouldn't call pro life being anti choice. I'm pro choice as well. I'm for the woman choosing when she has sex.

Whereas, undergoing a process which kills a baby is pretty anti life to me.

The word life itself is not a euphemism. I'll admit both sides are putting their little spin on it, but I feel pro life is a more accurate description.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Nov 17 2006, 01:27 AM

pro life is just not an accurate name. certainly pro life people aren't for all life, are they? some might be, but based on the pro- life stereotype, i doubt it.

yes, i guess pro choice may be inaccurate as well. but you can't say that pro- life is very accurate...

Posted by: yrrnotelekktric Nov 20 2006, 03:12 PM

it`s entirely up to the woman; although i could never have one.
first of all, i would have the sense not to have a child when i wasnt ready for it.
but hey, whateves.

Posted by: Obscure Enigma Dec 29 2006, 09:03 PM

I think abortion is definetly wrong, but I don't think it should be banned. If the mother of the baby is so selfish that she is willing to KILL a helpless & innocent baby that has done nothing, then the baby would be better off in Heaven rather than in this awful world with a mother who will most likely have sex & have an abortion again. But there are other situations that I could understand. The song "What It's Like" By Everlast gives a very good point of view on this subject. I do have a "friend" that has had an abortion. No, I do not agree with it, but it was her decision to make & if I were in her shoes I might've done the same thing, depending on the situation. You can never judge someone until you walk a mile in their shoes to find out what it's like. Rape is a different story though. Say, if you are a teenager & you are raped, I think that is is still bad, but you can't really help it if you aren't responsible enough. It wasn't your choice or fault that you got pregnant in that circumstance, it just happened like that & I am pretty sure that you will not be punshied for it in that case. I can also understand if you had a very high change of dieing while in the process of giving birth[[possibly the baby as well]],although I think if I were in that situation I would still attempt it.

Posted by: Kurd Jam Jan 3 2007, 01:40 PM

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Nov 16 2006, 1:58 AM) *
Gotta love euphemisms. Choice sounds much better than baby killing. Partial Birth abortion sounds so much better than cracking skulls and sucking brains out with a vacuum.


Euphemisms work both ways, it seems. What with Conan the Gynecologist, and all that.

There are fetal abnormalities that could suppose the death of the mother and/or the children which can only be detected in the later stages of pregnancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocephalus); I guess in those cases it would seem reasonable to perform a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation, an early induced labor, or a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction if medical advice suggests so.

The procedure is dangerous, that's a given, and represents a small fraction of the abortions performed (for obvious reasons). However, this would be a case where abortion should remain an option, yet conditioned to medical expert opinion IMO.

The key of the abortion debate seems to reside in reasoned moderation rather than in moral convenience.

Posted by: Mini Jul 12 2007, 01:53 PM

All I have to say is:

ABORTION HURTS LIKE SHIT.


And it looks gross, so if you want to abort a child, then please be prepared.

Let me think of some instances where abortion might be necessary:

Well, in cases such as incest, the baby will either be very messed up when it's born or it will die in the womb because it didn't have the ability to survive.

So either way, the baby is screwed.


For drunken mistakes, well, that's really too bad. Honestly, both parties involved need to take responsibility if they're going to get intoxicated in the first place.


As for a form of protection, that's just stupid. Use a freaking condom or diaphragm. Or spermicide. Even better, get your ovaries cut.


Well, to make my post short, I agree with the people who think that abortion should be made legal, in reasoned moderation.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 12 2007, 02:19 PM

All I'm goin to say is, I'm against abortion unless it was a victim of rape, I think they and only they should have the option to abort their child.

Posted by: kimmytree Jul 12 2007, 07:17 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 12 2007, 03:19 PM) *
All I'm goin to say is, I'm against abortion unless it was a victim of rape, I think they and only they should have the option to abort their child.

I agree - someone who's been raped has every right to have an abortion. Same if the mother's life is in danger, or if the doctors are certain there's something really wrong with the baby.

But I dont think we can completely make it not an option for everyone else though. I'm against having one done as a form of birth control, but a woman still has the right. I think we need to outlaw abortions after a woman is 3 or 4 months along, because the fetus is more developed. But I think anything before that should be allowed.

I think instead of outlawing it, it needs to be more discouraged. I think every woman (except those who's lives are in danger or have been raped) before they have an abortion should have to be fully informed on exactly what they're doing. They need to know basically what the doctor knows. And they should have to view an ultra sound. And of course be informed of other options, like they already are. I think alot of women would change their mind after being presented with things like that.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 12 2007, 07:34 PM

QUOTE(kimmytree @ Jul 12 2007, 08:17 PM) *
I agree - someone who's been raped has every right to have an abortion. Same if the mother's life is in danger, or if the doctors are certain there's something really wrong with the baby.

But I dont think we can completely make it not an option for everyone else though. I'm against having one done as a form of birth control, but a woman still has the right. I think we need to outlaw abortions after a woman is 3 or 4 months along, because the fetus is more developed. But I think anything before that should be allowed.

I think instead of outlawing it, it needs to be more discouraged. I think every woman (except those who's lives are in danger or have been raped) before they have an abortion should have to be fully informed on exactly what they're doing. They need to know basically what the doctor knows. And they should have to view an ultra sound. And of course be informed of other options, like they already are. I think alot of women would change their mind after being presented with things like that.


True... pretty much agree thumbsup.gif

Posted by: 1angel3 Jul 13 2007, 03:10 PM

Abortion should be illegal with exceptions. Depending on her situation like you all stated rather it rape or so for. I don't believe in Partial Birth Abortion. PBA should be illegal no matter what.

http://www.acljlife.org/parb_supopins.asp to learn what PBA Procedure is.

http://www.lancasterlife.com/partial_birth_abortion.html for a diagram and a quick video of PBA.

I may edit later on.

Posted by: steve330 Jul 13 2007, 03:12 PM

But what's to stop someone from claiming they were raped? Also, how about the people who know about what they're doing, and don't need it reinforced further about what they're about to do?

Posted by: resplendence Jul 13 2007, 03:58 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 13 2007, 04:12 PM) *
But what's to stop someone from claiming they were raped? Also, how about the people who know about what they're doing, and don't need it reinforced further about what they're about to do?



i'm not sure but if a woman claims she was rape, and i'm assuming to a doctor or someone at the clinic so she could get an abortion, since it such a severe crime, it is suppose to reported. once reported, an investigation would follow, probably. falsely claiming rape extremely wrong and can be punished.

even if they know what they are doing, that doesn't mean they are ready or understand the long term effects. that is why in some states, counseling sessions are required for women who are seeking abortion. these sessions not only cover what abortion is but it helps the women undestand the full scope of what they are doing because just understanding the medical procedure isn't enough.

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 13 2007, 04:28 PM

You know, I used to be very much against abortion but now, I'm not so sure. If I should get pregnant right now, knowing fully well that I'm in no way capable of taking care of a child, I might abort it. I want to go to school, I want to have a uninterrupted future, I want to date and I certainly do not want to be a mother at 19. I'm not claiming that I'm going to be careless and have unprotected sex BUT shit happens. A broken condom perhaps.

Never in a million years did I think that I'll feel this way.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 13 2007, 04:31 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 13 2007, 04:12 PM) *
But what's to stop someone from claiming they were raped? Also, how about the people who know about what they're doing, and don't need it reinforced further about what they're about to do?


Then I would say that, to make it legal, it would have to be reported to the police, and produce a police report to the abortion clinic.

Posted by: ersatz Jul 13 2007, 11:53 PM

People don't always report it because sometimes they're scared or their lives are threatened or they were young, like in high school. Maybe they had an abusive boyfriend and he raped them. Maybe they're embarrassed and feel at fault for their "weakness". You can't just assume everything is reported cause it's not.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 12:05 AM

QUOTE(ersatz @ Jul 14 2007, 12:53 AM) *
People don't always report it because sometimes they're scared or their lives are threatened or they were young, like in high school. Maybe they had an abusive boyfriend and he raped them. Maybe they're embarrassed and feel at fault for their "weakness". You can't just assume everything is reported cause it's not.

LOL I knew this would come up eventually. I hate to be the one and only brutal a-hole, but that's their problem. If they're not gonna report it to the police, (which is obviously the smart idea, threat or no threat) then no abortion for them.

I know I know... I'm such an a-hole, but oh well.. it's not like it'll happen anyways thumbsup.gif

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 12:08 AM

^Easier said than done. Rape is a traumatic thing and can psychologically scar someone.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 12:11 AM

I think abortions should be allowed. This is a right that should be reserved for the parents OR mother of the fetus.

It is not something that I think should replace using protection while having sex, but I do think that it should be there as a last resort if someone does get pregnant by an accident, rape, or even sheer stupidity. There are back-door (or whatever that term is) abortions out there, and those are disgusting and unsterilized; it is not something that females should have to deal with if they cannot handle having a baby. People say that it is possible to just give it up for adoption, but being pregnant does take a lot away from women, too. It takes away job times, health (for a while), and a lot of energy.

I think that the government should allow abortions. It is the woman's final choice on whether she believes it is right or wrong, not everyone else's.

Posted by: Mercy Jul 14 2007, 08:40 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 05:05 AM) *
LOL I knew this would come up eventually. I hate to be the one and only brutal a-hole, but that's their problem. If they're not gonna report it to the police, (which is obviously the smart idea, threat or no threat) then no abortion for them.

I know I know... I'm such an a-hole, but oh well.. it's not like it'll happen anyways thumbsup.gif

I love how you make this sound so f**king easy.If your woman got raped more than 50 percent of the time shes gonna feel dirty,violated and she may never tell you because she might think that you will stop loving her less or look at her as dirty..She may never tell the police because again,she may feel people look down at her.Again,you are not a women nor have you ever been raped so you have never felt that emotion of feeling so small in the world,so vulnerable,and to feel afterwards that you have to trust a man intimately again..To sit there and say its "obviously the smart idea" in a sense is tasteless because again.Not every woman is gonna want to run to the police right away because of what happened.This is why this kind of thing like abortion should only be at the hands of women only because its a womans body and her choice to do what she wishes and its women not men who go through the changes of pregnancy that depending on the circumstances,may not be capable of doing.

And Im not saying that shes (your girlfriend) is automaticly going to think that,But I know that thats how most of us (women) would think in times like that.

Posted by: JakeKKing Jul 14 2007, 12:55 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 14 2007, 01:08 AM) *
^Easier said than done. Rape is a traumatic thing and can psychologically scar someone.


No it's not. Trust me.

He's right. It is their problem. Do something about it, or don't do anything at all and suffer the consequences. I'm not saying that the victim is the one to blame, but they can do something about it. Some people choose not to. Oh, well.

Abortion is wrong anyway. So, don't do it.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 12:57 PM

QUOTE(JakeKKing @ Jul 14 2007, 12:55 PM) *
No it's not. Trust me.

He's right. It is their problem. Do something about it, or don't do anything at all and suffer the consequences. I'm not saying that the victim is the one to blame, but they can do something about it. Some people choose not to. Oh, well.

Abortion is wrong anyway. So, don't do it.


How is not? I know this girl who got raped when she was a pre-teen, and she has had nightmares almost every night since then, and she refuses to wear clothes that show any "sexual" part of her body. This seems to be signs of some damage to herself and her mind.

Edit: I will also add in your defense that she has begun to get over it recently; she's more social and willing to wear more female clothing.

Posted by: fathomlessdame Jul 14 2007, 01:25 PM

It should be illegal with exceptions for rape and when having a baby could kill the woman.

When someone becomes pregnant, thats a life inside of their body--a life that is not part of the mother's body. Since this embryo has different DNA from the mom, he/she is NOT part of the mother's body. Every other cell in the woman has the same DNA, so why should the embryo she is carrying, that doesnt have the same DNA in his/her cells, be considered part of her body?

The embryo is a beginning of a human life. By having an abortion, this life is killed. If someone decides to have an abortion, they are keeping someone from experiencing life and all its ups and downs. You know the saying, "Better have loved and lost, than to never to have loved at all"? Wouldn't it also be true to say, "Better to have lived and lost, that to never have lived at all"?

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 01:30 PM

I think that people who are against abortion that believe the woman should put up the baby for adoption should adopt all the babies were unwanted. That way, everyone is happy. _smile.gif

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 01:33 PM

Fathomless, are you saying that the people who can't afford to give the baby a good upbringing should have the baby, going through all the emotional and physical pain, and always knowing that they wanted the abortion on the baby but it was illegal?

If they can't afford the baby, they should not be forced to have it, as it could only further the circle of poverty in that child.

Sure people should be careful, and should be on the pill or use condoms, but what happens in those times when it's broken or that .01% comes to life? Also what's to stop people from alleging that they were raped? If rape was the only way out, I'm sure the rape rate would skyrocket.

Posted by: resplendence Jul 14 2007, 01:54 PM

QUOTE(fathomlessdame @ Jul 14 2007, 02:25 PM) *
It should be illegal with exceptions for rape and when having a baby could kill the woman.

When someone becomes pregnant, thats a life inside of their body--a life that is not part of the mother's body. Since this embryo has different DNA from the mom, he/she is NOT part of the mother's body. Every other cell in the woman has the same DNA, so why should the embryo she is carrying, that doesnt have the same DNA in his/her cells, be considered part of her body?

The embryo is a beginning of a human life. By having an abortion, this life is killed. If someone decides to have an abortion, they are keeping someone from experiencing life and all its ups and downs. You know the saying, "Better have loved and lost, than to never to have loved at all"? Wouldn't it also be true to say, "Better to have lived and lost, that to never have lived at all"?



by taking away a woman's rights to make the decision for herself, i hope you know you're setting a precendent that no woman, and further more, no body, has their own bodily rights. so before you remove the choice from millions of women, are you ready to tell the government that people, including yourself, don't have soverignity over their own body? you would think this doesn't correlate but the argument for choice is that women have rights to their own body and it's their choice. you remove that right and that choice you effectively eliminate bodily rights, something that is already vague in the Constitution.

so before you take away the rights from someone else, how willing are you to have yours put in jeopardy?

jakeKking and tamacracker - rape is not own a crime against a victim's physical being but also her (sometimes his) emotional/mental being. not reporting it is not "their problem". same reason why many kids don't report being molest. rape is such a violation of a person that you can't say that it is their fault for not reporting.

there is no choice. there is no choice in rape and what a victim can do afterwards. coming forward with rape involves even more violation. so please don't disrespect what a victim has to go through by saying "she should've reported it."

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 02:58 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 14 2007, 02:33 PM) *
Fathomless, are you saying that the people who can't afford to give the baby a good upbringing should have the baby, going through all the emotional and physical pain, and always knowing that they wanted the abortion on the baby but it was illegal?

If they can't afford the baby, they should not be forced to have it, as it could only further the circle of poverty in that child.

Sure people should be careful, and should be on the pill or use condoms, but what happens in those times when it's broken or that .01% comes to life? Also what's to stop people from alleging that they were raped? If rape was the only way out, I'm sure the rape rate would skyrocket.



Adoption.

As for the reporting to the police, like I said... if the girl doesn't report it, oh f**kin well. Do you know how many law suits go around this country for shit that's just as mentally f**ked as getting raped?


And yes I know how women get all emotional and shit... but this is their lives, not only did they get raped, but they're gonna let the rapist get away, AND have the rapist's kid. C'mon man... give me a damn break.

And anyone using the excuse of being poor and can't bring up a kid so they need to abort it, needs to be executed. Obviously they're irresponsible enough to have unprotected sex and are willing to murder or ruin the life of their child.

Not because the child deserved it, but because the parents are useless human beings. Who in my eyes should deserve their heads drilled, their brains liquidized, and then sucked out.
QUOTE(resplendence @ Jul 14 2007, 02:54 PM) *


jakeKking and tamacracker - rape is not own a crime against a victim's physical being but also her (sometimes his) emotional/mental being. not reporting it is not "their problem". same reason why many kids don't report being molest. rape is such a violation of a person that you can't say that it is their fault for not reporting.


You're gonna use the mind of a child to justify this?... Kid doesn't know if this is normal or not... not until they grow older and realize that was something wrong for sure.

Ah well... I'm sorry I don't understand emotions of others. Some people are extremely emotional... and some can keep their mind together enough to be realistic and realize it's not the end of the world.

Keep in mind, I'm pretty much apathetic about humans, depending on the situation of course.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 02:59 PM

Would YOU be willing to adopt all the children who come from families who should not have the babies? B/c if you are, then sure! Make abortion illegal.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 03:08 PM

QUOTE(MyMichelle @ Jul 14 2007, 03:59 PM) *
Would YOU be willing to adopt all the children who come from families who should not have the babies? B/c if you are, then sure! Make abortion illegal.



As long as there's people who cannot get pregnant... that's always an option for them. A kid livin in an adaption home or whatever, is better than living in military school or a religious school.

Would I adopt a kid? If I can't get my girl pregnant... you bet.

Posted by: Elba Jul 14 2007, 03:08 PM

Oh God, so many idiots in this world.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 03:10 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 03:08 PM) *
As long as there's people who cannot get pregnant... that's always an option for them. A kid livin in an adaption home or whatever, is better than living in military school or a religious school.

Would I adopt a kid? If I can't get my girl pregnant... you bet.


The thing is there are people who cannot get pregnant, yet we have so many orpans. We have gay couples and infertile couples, and there are still babies without homes. I'm not sure how great living in an adoption home is - have you lived in one before? Because it seems to me that a lot of kids do not like the prospect of living in one.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 03:11 PM

QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 14 2007, 04:08 PM) *
Oh God, so many idiots in this world.


Oh well... abortion will always be illegal anyways, deal with it laugh.gif

Posted by: Elba Jul 14 2007, 03:12 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 01:11 PM) *
Oh well... abortion will always be illegal anyways, deal with it laugh.gif

You mean LEGAL.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 03:20 PM

QUOTE(MyMichelle @ Jul 14 2007, 04:10 PM) *
The thing is there are people who cannot get pregnant, yet we have so many orpans. We have gay couples and infertile couples, and there are still babies without homes. I'm not sure how great living in an adoption home is - have you lived in one before? Because it seems to me that a lot of kids do not like the prospect of living in one.



Gay couples are just a form of population control, scientifically speaking at least, so it's better not to mention them in this. They're candidates for adopting don't get me wrong.

Infertile couples have their choice as well, if they want to be responsible for a child or not.

And no I've never lived in one...

Listen the world can never be perfect. And sadly, a human who thinks it's better to murder a child (who for all we know could have been a scientist for God sake) than to give birth to the child and put him/her up for adoption so that at least he/she has a chance to get a great family.

Could you list me some things that seem so wrong about adoption? And the buildings in which these adopted kids live in? Cuz from what I see... they eat well, they get educated, they go on field trips, they celebrate holidays.



QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 14 2007, 04:12 PM) *
You mean LEGAL.

In cases of rape or a threat to life rolleyes.gif

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 03:29 PM

Tamacracker, abortion is legal. I don't know where you live but in the United States people get abortions when they want them.

Posted by: Elba Jul 14 2007, 03:29 PM

So you're saying abortions are illegal right now? huh.gif

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 14 2007, 03:33 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 03:20 PM) *
Gay couples are just a form of population control, scientifically speaking at least, so it's better not to mention them in this. They're candidates for adopting don't get me wrong.

Infertile couples have their choice as well, if they want to be responsible for a child or not.

And no I've never lived in one...

Listen the world can never be perfect. And sadly, a human who thinks it's better to murder a child (who for all we know could have been a scientist for God sake) than to give birth to the child and put him/her up for adoption so that at least he/she has a chance to get a great family.

Could you list me some things that seem so wrong about adoption? And the buildings in which these adopted kids live in? Cuz from what I see... they eat well, they get educated, they go on field trips, they celebrate holidays.


It is not everyone's opinion that abortion means "murder."

I do not think anything is wrong with adoption; I think it is incorrect to believe that placing unwanted children under the care of people with only so much is the right thing to do - not to mention stripping the mother of many things (which have been previously mentioned, so do not ask what I meant by that). I did not say that being in an adoption home was terrible, but you have never lived in one as well. I said this: "a lot of kids do not like the prospect of living in one." I think that living in a building and waiting for someone to come pick them up everyday like a pound is somewhat depressing.

Basically, my point is that, sure, it is possible to put up babies for adoption as another choice besides abortion, but there are not enough people adopting. Like I originally said, if everyone who is against abortion was willing to completely, fully, and deeply care and raise children who were meant to be aborted, then I have would have absolutely no issue with making abortion illegal. :] Unfortunately, that is not true. I doubt that most of the people who are against abortion would be willing to adopt the number of fetuses that need to be aborted.

Posted by: 1angel3 Jul 14 2007, 03:34 PM

The reason I think abortion should be illegal because two many people abuse it. Some women abort their child because their not ready to have a child. If your not ready don't have sex.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 03:37 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 14 2007, 04:29 PM) *
Tamacracker, abortion is legal. I don't know where you live but in the United States people get abortions when they want them.


Daaaamn really? They should bomb more abortion clinics then, where are the Christian terrorists at?

I thought it was in cases of rape or a threat to life!

Damn America's Karma is going down the shitter :D


QUOTE(MyMichelle @ Jul 14 2007, 04:33 PM) *
It is not everyone's opinion that abortion means "murder."

I do not think anything is wrong with adoption; I think it is incorrect to believe that placing unwanted children under the care of people with only so much is the right thing to do - not to mention stripping the mother of many things (which have been previously mentioned, so do not ask what I meant by that). I did not say that being in an adoption home was terrible, but you have never lived in one as well. I said this: "a lot of kids do not like the prospect of living in one." I think that living in a building and waiting for someone to come pick them up everyday like a pound is somewhat depressing.

Basically, my point is that, sure, it is possible to put up babies for adoption as another choice besides abortion, but there are not enough people adopting. Like I originally said, if everyone who is against abortion was willing to completely, fully, and deeply care and raise children who were meant to be aborted, then I have would have absolutely no issue with making abortion illegal. :] Unfortunately, that is not true. I doubt that most of the people who are against abortion would be willing to adopt the number of fetuses that need to be aborted.



Uh oh yeah, good point, some where in there.

LOL I just found out America legalized abortion for whatever the reason may be! I gotta tell this one to my mom next time I speak with her.

QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 14 2007, 04:29 PM) *
So you're saying abortions are illegal right now? huh.gif


LOL Abortion is a penalty by death... This is justified. If it's abortion in cases of rape or a threat to life, that's a whole different story, it's legal.

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 03:40 PM

Yeah it is :) It's sometimes helpful to research something you're debating before you make a stance and are declare something to be fact.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 03:44 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 14 2007, 04:40 PM) *
Yeah it is :) It's sometimes helpful to research something you're debating before you make a stance and are declare something to be fact.


Sorry... I don't live in your demonic country thumbsup.gif

Posted by: kimmytree Jul 14 2007, 04:06 PM

QUOTE(JakeKKing @ Jul 14 2007, 01:55 PM) *
No it's not. Trust me.

He's right. It is their problem. Do something about it, or don't do anything at all and suffer the consequences. I'm not saying that the victim is the one to blame, but they can do something about it. Some people choose not to. Oh, well.

Abortion is wrong anyway. So, don't do it.

I think its easy to say that until you're actually IN the situation. Same thing with abusive husbands.

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 04:20 PM) *
Gay couples are just a form of population control, scientifically speaking at least, so it's better not to mention them in this. They're candidates for adopting don't get me wrong.

Infertile couples have their choice as well, if they want to be responsible for a child or not.

And no I've never lived in one...

Listen the world can never be perfect. And sadly, a human who thinks it's better to murder a child (who for all we know could have been a scientist for God sake) than to give birth to the child and put him/her up for adoption so that at least he/she has a chance to get a great family.

Could you list me some things that seem so wrong about adoption? And the buildings in which these adopted kids live in? Cuz from what I see... they eat well, they get educated, they go on field trips, they celebrate holidays.




In cases of rape or a threat to life

Some people dont consider abortion murder, because its a fetus. I dont think killing an unborn child is the same thing as killing a infant. The farther along the pregnacy is, the more and more it is like murder... but I still dont think its the same. Especially in the earlier stages of pregnacy, the fetus isnt as aware of its surroundings... and I'm sure it cant feel pain as much as a newborn / baby.

It's still a shame to abort a fetus, because it is still a human life.

And with adoption - that's obviously the better option, but could you imagine how many extra kids would be in the system if abortions were illegal? Not all of them find homes as it is.

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 04:45 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 03:44 PM) *
Sorry... I don't live in your demonic country thumbsup.gif


ORLY. Oh wells, I'm quite content living in America. Maybe you're content living where you are. I'll live here any day.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 04:50 PM

QUOTE(kimmytree @ Jul 14 2007, 05:06 PM) *
Some people dont consider abortion murder, because its a fetus. I dont think killing an unborn child is the same thing as killing a infant. The farther along the pregnacy is, the more and more it is like murder... but I still dont think its the same. Especially in the earlier stages of pregnacy, the fetus isnt as aware of its surroundings... and I'm sure it cant feel pain as much as a newborn / baby.

It's still a shame to abort a fetus, because it is still a human life.



Hm.... how come in the legal system, if a man shot a pregnant woman (no matter what stage of pregnancy) he is charged with double homicide?

Yeah Steve, I'm really happy where I'm at _smile.gif

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 04:56 PM

I'm glad to hear :) Where do you live, out of curiosity?

Posted by: kimmytree Jul 14 2007, 09:13 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 05:50 PM) *
Hm.... how come in the legal system, if a man shot a pregnant woman (no matter what stage of pregnancy) he is charged with double homicide?

Yeah Steve, I'm really happy where I'm at _smile.gif

I'm not completely sure, but I'm guessing because it wasnt the mothers choice? I'm not sure. Whether the person is pregnat or not, a person deserves to spend life in prison or to be executed for murdering them. So really, the second count of homicide cant really get them more punishment. shrug.gif

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 14 2007, 09:40 PM

QUOTE(kimmytree @ Jul 14 2007, 10:13 PM) *
I'm not completely sure, but I'm guessing because it wasnt the mothers choice? I'm not sure. Whether the person is pregnat or not, a person deserves to spend life in prison or to be executed for murdering them. So really, the second count of homicide cant really get them more punishment. shrug.gif


True... they don't get the death penalty for 2 counts?

Posted by: steve330 Jul 14 2007, 11:22 PM

Many states don't like the whole death penalty thing. We got it in Texas, it's a nice lil deterrent.

Posted by: Elba Jul 14 2007, 11:55 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 02:50 PM) *
in the legal system, if a man shot a pregnant woman (no matter what stage of pregnancy) he is charged with double homicide?

Is that a fact? Where did you get that from?

Posted by: voguelove Jul 15 2007, 12:01 AM

no, it should not be illegal here.


i think that it should stay legal mainly for the safety of women. even if abortion became illegal, women would still try to get them. and without abortion, theyd go to non safe doctors with uncleaned utensils. not only is extrememly dirty, but they can delvelop infections..which wouldnt exactly be great.


and also, with the women who get pregnant from rape..it's not fair for them to live through a pregnancy that was from rape. yes, you can say that they can just put it up for adoption, but most teenage girls dont have the strength or capabilities to endure a pregnancy that goes full term. i, personally would not want to go through 9 months of my life having to think about that rape.

Posted by: ersatz Jul 15 2007, 12:15 AM


New official rule of this thread -- you cannot debate here if you have no idea what you're even debating about.

And the whole double homicide thing, it's true -- that's a good question; I personally don't think it should be that way and at the moment have no power to change that, but perhaps it is because they are in essence preventing the fetus from ever living (which is what killing a person is, in all literal meanings), although it is not yet living. It also might depend on how far along the pregnancy is. I know there was that one high-profile case, Scott something killed his pregnant wife or whatever, but she was 8 or 9 months pregnant...I think anyone would consider it a life at that point. It may be the same as abortion (because, in case you didn't know, abortion in America is only legal in the first trimester).

And wait a minute, didn't you say once you were in the Army or something? Marines? As in United States?

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 12:53 AM

According to him, it's double homocide even if she's only 5 weeks pregnant.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 15 2007, 12:58 AM

Is it double homicide if there's little spermies in the woman's twat?

Posted by: Rachel Jul 15 2007, 12:59 AM

DUH Michelle, how could you even ask that?!


PS, Rape is totally the victims fault. Dumb bitch shouldn't have been looking like she wanted it.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 15 2007, 01:00 AM

QUOTE(Rachel @ Jul 15 2007, 12:59 AM) *
DUH Michelle, how could you even ask that?!

Shit, I'm sorry. Just making sure. :T Gotta keep my facts straight, y'know?

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:00 AM

Yeah. Dumb hoes should fight harder to keep their legs closed and not let the rapist get in.

Posted by: steve330 Jul 15 2007, 01:01 AM

Stupid bitch, teach her to have a vagina

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:06 AM

Yeah. Vagina = always expect any penis to get in, even forcibly.

Posted by: Rachel Jul 15 2007, 01:07 AM

Bitch just needs to shut her mouth and take it like a Tama... I mean man.

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:08 AM

Or better yet keep their mouth open so he can finish inside of it and all over her whore ass face.

Posted by: steve330 Jul 15 2007, 01:14 AM

Or ears. I hear ear sex is whats going down these days. I don't think you would need an abortion if you used ear sex.

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:15 AM

Wow, so you kill two birds with one stone. Awesome! Get raped in the ear, no abortions.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:19 AM

QUOTE(ersatz @ Jul 15 2007, 01:15 AM) *

New official rule of this thread -- you cannot debate here if you have no idea what you're even debating about.

And the whole double homicide thing, it's true -- that's a good question; I personally don't think it should be that way and at the moment have no power to change that, but perhaps it is because they are in essence preventing the fetus from ever living (which is what killing a person is, in all literal meanings), although it is not yet living. It also might depend on how far along the pregnancy is. I know there was that one high-profile case, Scott something killed his pregnant wife or whatever, but she was 8 or 9 months pregnant...I think anyone would consider it a life at that point. It may be the same as abortion (because, in case you didn't know, abortion in America is only legal in the first trimester).

And wait a minute, didn't you say once you were in the Army or something? Marines? As in United States?



I was never in the military... unless you're speakin to someone else. Do you have a post/thread of me making that claim?

QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 15 2007, 12:55 AM) *
Is that a fact? Where did you get that from?


CourtTV.

Posted by: Rachel Jul 15 2007, 01:22 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 11:19 PM) *
CourtTV.

Ooooh super reliable!!

Posted by: shotgunFUNERAL Jul 15 2007, 01:22 AM

tamacracker go to bed like you said you were when you pussied out of the fight you started.

is that harry calling?

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:24 AM

QUOTE(Rachel @ Jul 15 2007, 02:22 AM) *
Ooooh super reliable!!


Aren't those based on real cases?

If not then my knowledge in law is pretty screwed.

QUOTE(shotgunFUNERAL @ Jul 15 2007, 02:22 AM) *
tamacracker go to bed like you said you were when you pussied out of the fight you started.

is that harry calling?


I wouldn't waste my time with you... online at least. Face to face, I'd make you eat your own words.

And you started the e-fight, don't forget that.

Posted by: doiink Jul 15 2007, 01:26 AM

say we're talking about rape here again, and we're in the child's point of view. so let's say the mother was raped, abortion was illegal, and had to raise the child. i wonder how you would think of life if you knew that your dad was a rapist and your mom didn't really want you mellow.gif

in addition, clotheshangers were used back in the days, sooo why not just KEEP IT LEGAL, so those that need it/want it, can get them; those who don't approve of it, stay out of other people's business. we're not making you get abortions. it's a choice

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:26 AM

YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE MURDERS A PREGNANT WOMAN AT ANY STAGE OF HER PREGNANCY, IT IS CONSIDERED DOUBLE HOMICIDE.

I highly doubt that's true because it would be ridiculous if she was only, say 4 weeks pregnant.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:29 AM

QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 15 2007, 02:26 AM) *
YOU ARE SAYING THAT IF SOMEONE MURDERS A PREGNANT WOMAN AT ANY STAGE OF HER PREGNANCY, IT IS CONSIDERED DOUBLE HOMICIDE.

I highly doubt that's true because it would be ridiculous if she was only, say 4 weeks pregnant.


But what if the former father planned on having the kid with the woman. But now she's dead and so is his unborn child. Do you understand?

I know abortion should be a choice... I'm pro-choice to an extent.

Guys, it's homicide not homocide

Alright I'm outs!

Posted by: terrible1fi Jul 15 2007, 01:29 AM

elba it is double homocide

right?????

Posted by: Elba Jul 15 2007, 01:31 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 14 2007, 11:29 PM) *
But what if the former father planned on having the kid with the woman. But now she's dead and so is his unborn child. Do you understand?

I know abortion should be a choice... I'm pro-choice to an extent.

You're pro choice? Why are you debating as pro life?

& What if the father didn't plan on having the kid?

QUOTE(terrible1fi @ Jul 14 2007, 11:29 PM) *
elba it is double homocide

right?????

haha no

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:34 AM

QUOTE(Elba @ Jul 15 2007, 02:31 AM) *
You're pro choice? Why are you debating as pro life?

& What if the father didn't plan on having the kid?
haha no



I dunno, I don't know the outcome to that. I could ask my lady, she's a paralegal in a law firm in which only do high profile cases. Maybe she'll know the answer, I'll even post the convo tomorrow happy.gif

Posted by: shotgunFUNERAL Jul 15 2007, 01:35 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 15 2007, 01:24 AM) *
I wouldn't waste my time with you... online at least. Face to face, I'd make you eat your own words.

And you started the e-fight, don't forget that.
right, so lets take online personally from now on.

i remember you sending me a message about how you'd "knock me the fuck out", but yet i started it? suck on this, bitch.

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:37 AM

QUOTE(shotgunFUNERAL @ Jul 15 2007, 02:35 AM) *
right, so lets take online personally from now on.

I can say the same for you, you made that thread because I caused you to take it personal, and the outcome was you attacking me.

Bitch? Another personal attack?... And going off topic? Damn child.

Reported.

lol soft feelings.

Posted by: shotgunFUNERAL Jul 15 2007, 01:40 AM

actually, it was fun in games. the whole chat knew it was a joke, but you on the other hand, took it personally. i'm sorry to have offended you, dear sir.

whatever shall i do with a report about me?

Posted by: Tamacracker Jul 15 2007, 01:42 AM

QUOTE(shotgunFUNERAL @ Jul 15 2007, 02:40 AM) *
actually, it was fun in games. the whole chat knew it was a joke, but you on the other hand, took it personally. i'm sorry to have offended you, dear sir.

whatever shall i do with a report about me?



Oh I see how it is... so moderators have the right to disrespect others, and not be warned for it? You should become a cop.

Alright gotta go, finished my emails oh and I'll re-report your post tomorrow where there's other mods to recieve it.

QUOTE(shotgunFUNERAL @ Jul 15 2007, 02:35 AM) *
right, so lets take online personally from now on.

i remember you sending me a message about how you'd "knock me the fuck out", but yet i started it? suck on this, bitch.

Posted by: shotgunFUNERAL Jul 15 2007, 01:42 AM

will you train me? you seem to be in tip top shape and probably the best around.

you're as well, off topic.

reported.

Posted by: shotgunFUNERAL Jul 15 2007, 01:45 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Jul 15 2007, 01:42 AM) *
Alright gotta go, finished my emails oh and I'll re-report your post tomorrow where there's other mods to recieve it.
thank you, dearly. i really hope all is sorted out.

pussy

Posted by: ersatz Jul 15 2007, 10:08 AM

Stooooop

I know no one freaking mods this forum (stubborn.gif) but let's try to keep any back-and-forth sarcastic material to a minimum (not saying it shouldn't be there at all, but it's a lot of that page; it was funny) and the fighting to PMs (that shouldn't be here at all). Please?

Posted by: Arjuna Capulong Jul 15 2007, 10:11 AM

OK.

So, uh, how about that abortion?

Posted by: steve330 Jul 15 2007, 10:12 AM

Abortions abort things.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 15 2007, 01:40 PM

Ain't nobody gon tell me wat 2 dew!

Posted by: steve330 Jul 15 2007, 03:24 PM

shutup bitch get back in the kitchen and make me babies

Posted by: xKatt Jul 17 2007, 01:40 AM

Abortion should be legal, safe and rare. Now someone argue/agree with me.

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 17 2007, 02:07 AM

^ I completely DISAGREE!! Abortion should be ILLEGAL ... sadly I have no arguments. fallen.gif

Oh, for those who don't understand, this is a joke and isn't supposed to be taken seriously. Do not bash me, I repeat, do not bash me.

*sigh*

Posted by: xKatt Jul 17 2007, 02:21 AM

I hope you find some arguments soon.

throb.gif
flowers.gif

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 17 2007, 02:48 AM

I don't. Seriously, being that I'm really sexually active, it makes it hard to pick a side. If I should get pregnant, I think I'll abort it. I'm actually more pro abortion than otherwise ...

You just can't understand the scare of being pregnant at 19 or less.

I'm blabbing because I'm PMSing.

Posted by: kimmytree Jul 17 2007, 08:25 AM

QUOTE(Sandraaa @ Jul 17 2007, 03:48 AM) *
I don't. Seriously, being that I'm really sexually active, it makes it hard to pick a side. If I should get pregnant, I think I'll abort it. I'm actually more pro abortion than otherwise ...

You just can't understand the scare of being pregnant at 19 or less.

I'm blabbing because I'm PMSing.

If you think you'd want to abort it if you ever did get pregnant, then how can you possibly be pro life? Nobody likes abortions. It's easy for people to sit back and condem it until they're actually in a certain situation, like pregnant themselves.

I'm pro choice, but if I got pregnant now (I'm 18 and a virgin btw), I would keep it... even though I'm not ready to. But I cant imagine not having the choice if it was illegal.

Posted by: Rachel Jul 17 2007, 12:55 PM

QUOTE(kimmytree @ Jul 17 2007, 06:25 AM) *
If you think you'd want to abort it if you ever did get pregnant, then how can you possibly be pro life? Nobody likes abortions. It's easy for people to sit back and condem it until they're actually in a certain situation, like pregnant themselves.

I'm pro choice, but if I got pregnant now (I'm 18 and a virgin btw), I would keep it... even though I'm not ready to. But I cant imagine not having the choice if it was illegal.

mellow.gif She's not pro life. She said she was on the fence, but leaning more towards pro choice than pro life.

Posted by: xKatt Jul 17 2007, 04:37 PM

QUOTE(kimmytree @ Jul 17 2007, 08:25 AM) *
If you think you'd want to abort it if you ever did get pregnant, then how can you possibly be pro life? Nobody likes abortions. It's easy for people to sit back and condem it until they're actually in a certain situation, like pregnant themselves.

I'm pro choice, but if I got pregnant now (I'm 18 and a virgin btw), I would keep it... even though I'm not ready to. But I cant imagine not having the choice if it was illegal.


Agreed.

Everyone seems to think that abortion is some fallback or excuse for being promiscuous and irresponsible. People don't realise that having an abortion is a huge decision and it harms the mother as well, physically and mentally. Pro-lifers seem to be stuck in this mindset that pro-choicers are only pro-choice because they're sexually active and want to "throw away" their consequences, but having an abortion is a responsibility in itself.

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 18 2007, 12:40 AM

QUOTE(xKatt @ Jul 17 2007, 04:37 PM) *
Agreed.

Everyone seems to think that abortion is some fallback or excuse for being promiscuous and irresponsible. People don't realise that having an abortion is a huge decision and it harms the mother as well, physically and mentally. Pro-lifers seem to be stuck in this mindset that pro-choicers are only pro-choice because they're sexually active and want to "throw away" their consequences, but having an abortion is a responsibility in itself.


Yar.



My mom had an abortion once b/c she wasn't financially secure enough to have a baby, and she said she cried about it for a long time; apparently, there were pro-life people there before she got it screaming and yelling at her. ._. She said she still wonders about it sometimes (it was more than 14 years ago).

Posted by: Elba Jul 18 2007, 01:07 AM

I think more people need to worry about themselves instead of other people when it comes to things like this.

Personally, I would not have an abortion. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I did; there'd be too many "what if"s. But that's just me. That's my choice. I see nothing wrong with someone going through with an abortion if it's their own choice - whatever their reason is, it doesn't matter, it does not concern me.

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 18 2007, 05:27 PM

QUOTE
She's not pro life. She said she was on the fence, but leaning more towards pro choice than pro life.

Thanks Rach. I didn't quite understand what she was talking about.

Posted by: popoberry Jul 21 2007, 12:51 AM

i read this one saying about abortion .. 'if you're for abortion why are you alive' or idk if it`s all that but something close to it .

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 21 2007, 01:19 AM

^ You did? Cool. So? mellow.gif

Posted by: popoberry Jul 21 2007, 01:57 PM

yeah . so it`s self-explanitory duh . ^

Posted by: MyMichelle Jul 21 2007, 02:06 PM

Why am I alive?

Because my parents could f**king afford to raise me in a normal environment. Because my parents had the money to make sure I stayed alive and didn't have to beg in the streets to survive. Because my parents actually have a f**king job and know when it's the right time to have a child and when it's not. Because my parents COULD have me. That's why. And when they knew they couldn't, they aborted a fetus.

That's life. There is no "what if she/he was born, what would be different?" They were never here, and they never will be. Get over it. You're alive. And others aren't.

So next time you read some stupid shit like that, why don't you wonder why your life is better than some homeless, thrown-aside kid who will eventually die because of a disease or hunger?

Posted by: steve330 Jul 21 2007, 02:46 PM

QUOTE(popoberry @ Jul 21 2007, 12:51 AM) *
i read this one saying about abortion .. 'if you're for abortion why are you alive' or idk if it`s all that but something close to it .


What kind of argument is that? Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you can't be alive rofl. It's not like being pro-abortion means you have to abort every single fetus conceived.

Posted by: Rachel Jul 21 2007, 02:55 PM

QUOTE(steve330 @ Jul 21 2007, 12:46 PM) *
What kind of argument is that? Just because you're for abortion doesn't mean you can't be alive rofl. It's not like being pro-abortion means you have to abort every single fetus conceived.

yAAahh iT doEz stEv3!11!

Posted by: Elba Jul 21 2007, 02:57 PM

ii red sumwhere once dat ppl who hab aborshuns are stupid!!!11 and dat meens yall are stupid! becuz yall want to hab aborshuns

Posted by: steve330 Jul 21 2007, 03:03 PM

S0rr7z :{

Posted by: xKatt Jul 21 2007, 04:15 PM

omg lol wtf bbq

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 21 2007, 04:25 PM

LMFAO! I thought I was the only one who didn't see his / her point. laugh.gif

Posted by: ersatz Jul 22 2007, 01:24 PM

Stop it.

Posted by: Sandraaa Jul 22 2007, 06:04 PM

Stop what?

Posted by: Rachel Jul 23 2007, 06:52 PM

Stop not being intelligent enough for Sammi.

Posted by: ersatz Jul 23 2007, 11:56 PM

huh.gif

I meant stop spamming (not that I can do anything about it), but alright.

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 24 2007, 10:20 AM

If your baby was gay, would you abort it?

you hippocritical christian.


Posted by: Steven Jul 24 2007, 10:47 AM

^Mmmm haha, good point. While I myself am not a Christian (deist), I would say that not all Christians feel that way. My parents are very much Christian, yet they support abortion and don't treat gays bad just because they're gay. But now I'm rambling, and I suppose the point you were making was aimed @ anti-abortion anti-gay Christians.

Posted by: xKatt Jul 26 2007, 12:26 AM

QUOTE(sadolakced acid @ Jul 24 2007, 10:20 AM) *
If your baby was gay, would you abort it?

you hippocritical christian.


Hippocritical, lol.

I was lookin' for a way to get my 500th post.

Ooh what do you know?
biggrin.gif

Posted by: sadolakced acid Jul 26 2007, 11:41 AM

yes i know.

=]

mindy likes it too. And now it's become a habit.

Posted by: yupimchuck Aug 1 2007, 02:02 AM

i do just want to state my opinion

i dont believe abortion is right for ME
i think there are certain circumstances that it is acceptable, like if you were raped.

but if you go around just having sex irresponsibly as you please,
and do get pregnant. then its just really f**kin irritating for people to get abortions


but i do realize, young people have sex, irresponsibly wihtout considering the consequences,


and even if you are againstabortion
when you are scared you might be pregnant, chances are, youll forget abotu what youre for or against
because its actually hitting YOU

Posted by: dispn0ygonekrazy Aug 3 2007, 06:39 PM

It depends for me on the circumstances why a person would want to have an abortion. But due to the carelessness of teens in this generation with unsafe sex and the idea of getting laid to impress your friends I am against abortion. I see a lot of teenage women in clinics and majority of them are between the ages of 14-17 either by themselves or with a friend, in my opinion a lot of people who are for abortions are either because they're not ready to have a kid or to stay out of trouble with their parents or loved one. To me that's a bull shit excuse to have an abortion, I believe if your going to have sex know the consequences and pay for it. Having a kid costs money, killing your kid through abortion doesn't. so which factor are pregnant women going to be more afraid of? thats a question we cannot answer but can be asked. Everyones mind is different and if you think about it theres a lot of f**ked up people out there that take advantage of having abortions. Sometimes I wonder what goes on in their head when having an abortion, is the problem lifted or is it just getting heavier. You never know one of those aborted kids could have been something great.In our society people die and new people are born to take their place and have a chance to live, if your going to have abortion life aint gonna be much easier on you.

Posted by: Steven Aug 4 2007, 10:48 AM

^Having an abortion can do everything for you. If you can't financially support it and you're trying to get through school and a mistake happens (which does happen) then you pretty much have to give up your schooling and take a job to support you and your kid in poor conditions.

I agree that it's lame when high school kids need abortions because they were having sex to impress their friends, but not everyone is in that boat. If you illegalized abortion as a whole, there would be a lot more poverty-conditioned families/kids runnin around.

Also, what if they were to have the ability to produce awesome offspring, but were too poor to raise it and sent it to school? Sounds like a waste there too. Better to wait til they're financially set so they can raise that kid to his/her full potential.


Posted by: ersatz Aug 4 2007, 02:56 PM

QUOTE(dispn0ygonekrazy @ Aug 3 2007, 06:39 PM) *
Having a kid costs money, killing your kid through abortion doesn't.


Yes it does. Not only does an abortion hurt really, really bad, it also costs money.

Posted by: MorbidAngel Aug 12 2007, 09:48 PM

outlawed under certain circumstances.
such as rape, or the mother is not PHYSICALLY able.
and there should be PROOF. hardcore proof.
if you're 14 and did it with your boyfriend and got prego, DEAL WITH IT, if you are physically able to give birth.
those are the only circumstances i believe in.
there's too many whores running around these days.
save the abortion causes for people who need them, not just because you like to have sex without protection.

Posted by: Horib Aug 13 2007, 10:09 AM

I think your logic MorbidAngel with the "DEAL WITH IT" comment isn't great. Children are not only a responsibility, but are also considered a gift in a sense. There are many couples who cannot even have a child of there own due to some unfortunate circumstance. Is it really fair to have a child seen has a burden? Not all teens will just rise up and say "Oh i have to be responsible now and take care of a kid, even if I'm a kid myself" no, doesn't work like that at all. They'll probably leave the poor child with there parents. Financially it'll be a burden on the entire family. Hell, we don't know the entire situation. Proof? What kind of proof are you talking about. It's hard to prove the condom broke if you throw it away afterwards.

I'm pro-choice. Kids shouldn't be seen as burdens or punishments. They deserve a good life and be able to be financially supported and taken care of.

Posted by: Joss-eh-lime Aug 13 2007, 03:21 PM

I can understand why so many people turn to abortion as an easy way out, but i say No.

Posted by: MorbidAngel Aug 13 2007, 03:30 PM

QUOTE(Horib @ Aug 13 2007, 10:09 AM) *
I think your logic MorbidAngel with the "DEAL WITH IT" comment isn't great. Children are not only a responsibility, but are also considered a gift in a sense. There are many couples who cannot even have a child of there own due to some unfortunate circumstance. Is it really fair to have a child seen has a burden? Not all teens will just rise up and say "Oh i have to be responsible now and take care of a kid, even if I'm a kid myself" no, doesn't work like that at all. They'll probably leave the poor child with there parents. Financially it'll be a burden on the entire family. Hell, we don't know the entire situation. Proof? What kind of proof are you talking about. It's hard to prove the condom broke if you throw it away afterwards.

I'm pro-choice. Kids shouldn't be seen as burdens or punishments. They deserve a good life and be able to be financially supported and taken care of.


i agree.
BUT.
i was saying "deal with it" to the fact that they need to accept the consequences, instead of taking the easy way out through abortion, not the actual fact that they're having a child.
and my proof was the rape part. there's GOT to be a more logic and detailed way of testing for rape these days.

Posted by: Steven Aug 13 2007, 05:05 PM

How about date rape? They don't know they're being raped til it's too late, and it's not like they resist.

Posted by: MorbidAngel Aug 13 2007, 08:09 PM

hmm, never thought about the date rape thing.
ok, i don't know about that part...

Posted by: SoEffinMajor Aug 13 2007, 09:45 PM

abortion should be made legal, in my opinion to prevent the following:
1. illegal, unsafe abortions - because it will happen

2. young women from killing their babies/abandoning them



Posted by: oooohlala Aug 13 2007, 09:59 PM

a bit off topic, but have any of you guys read the book freakonomics? the author talks about how the legalization of abortion led to lower crime rates in the 1990s. thought provoking.

Posted by: Steven Aug 13 2007, 10:39 PM

^Could that be because aborted children don't have the opportunity to be raised in a poor environment, having little to nothing, possibly suffering from abuse, resorting to crime?

Posted by: oooohlala Aug 13 2007, 11:03 PM

yeah, exactly. the statistics the author gave nicely fits the theory, too.

Posted by: resplendence Oct 20 2007, 05:02 PM


BUMP.

Because I haven't had a good debate in awhile.

I got a question that I wanted mulled over.

Right now, abortions that are legal are not partial birth abortions.

When is the right time limit if abortions are legal? Before 1st trimester? 2nd?

According to Webmd, a fetus isn't even called a fetus until the 12th week of development when it develops nearly all the organs a human has (although they don't function fully).

Posted by: sadolakced acid Oct 23 2007, 02:05 AM

you're more likely to drown if you've just eaten a watermellon.

correlation != causation.

Posted by: Tamacracker Feb 23 2008, 01:49 AM

Only abortion I would agree to, is abortion allowed to females who were rape victims.

Not to irresponsible people. You wanna be adult enough to sleep with someone, be adult enough to handle the consequences.

That is all I have to say.

Posted by: yrrnotelekktric Feb 23 2008, 01:51 AM

I think if you`re gonna go through the pain of having an abortion, you might as well have the damn thing. Then give it someone who really wants it.



Posted by: superficial Feb 23 2008, 01:57 AM

I don't approve of abortion. Why? Simple. Why kill a human life when you can hand it over to someone who DOES want a kid (even if it's not their own) who cannot make one? Bless someone with happiness. Also, why kill a innocent life that didn't even do anything to you, but the fault of you not keep your pants on or not wearing a damn condom (or perhaps birth control or something that'll help lower the risk of pregnancy). It's something that I would never approve of. That life that you killed could have found a cure for cancer, a cure for HIV, AIDS, but you would never know because the kid's gone now.

Posted by: resplendence Feb 23 2008, 02:08 AM


^There's also a chance the fetus could be the next Adolf Hitler or be a serial killer.

Posted by: Tamacracker Feb 23 2008, 02:11 AM

QUOTE(superficial @ Feb 23 2008, 01:57 AM) *
I don't approve of abortion. Why? Simple. Why kill a human life when you can hand it over to someone who DOES want a kid (even if it's not their own) who cannot make one? Bless someone with happiness. Also, why kill a innocent life that didn't even do anything to you, but the fault of you not keep your pants on or not wearing a damn condom (or perhaps birth control or something that'll help lower the risk of pregnancy). It's something that I would never approve of. That life that you killed could have found a cure for cancer, a cure for HIV, AIDS, but you would never know because the kid's gone now.

I had to quote you on this... and I fully agree with you.

Problem is, pro-choice tend to use the excuse of; "well what if the condom breaks? That's not our fault"

"What if the birth control failed?"

Fact of the matter is... you fornicated as responsible adults would. Now step up to the plate and be responsible.

You don't plan on havin kids? Then don't fornicate until you're ready, that's how it goes.

Posted by: resplendence Feb 23 2008, 02:19 AM


^I'm prochoice. I understand that people make mistakes. They should be responsible but noone ever does what they should.

I just don't think it's right for me or anyone else to decide what someone else should do with their body. If I say women don't have rights to their body and reproduction, I'm essentially depriving myself of any type of rights to my own.

It's a two way street. You take someone else's rights away, you give up your own.

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Feb 23 2008, 02:23 AM

I am agaisnt abortion. I mean, if you do get raped. (Which I hope you don't.) Please, why don't you just carry it for 9 months and put him/her up for adoption if you can't care for it. Its really not an easy thing to do. [Abortion] I think that women should know what the baby goes through to be "aborted" before aborting their child. Its just really sick if you research the procedures they have to do. Its basically like killing somebody, and I hate hate hate when they say "its not even a baby yet." It has fingernails and it can hear you singing in the shower up to the first few months. I don't know why, I'm just really against it.

Posted by: brooklyneast05 Feb 23 2008, 02:26 AM

i duno why a woman should have to go through 9 months of that and risk her health for something she didn't consent to at all.

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Feb 23 2008, 02:30 AM

Raped women are a toughie because I don't exactly know what to say. But I suppose you're right. I'm agaisnt it but it really is up to the mothers decision and what she wants to do with her life. I just want women who are getting abortions to really know what they do to the kid, tis all. cry.gif

Posted by: brooklyneast05 Feb 23 2008, 02:32 AM

i'm prochoice. i just don't think the government should be telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies. i don't think it should be used as birth control or something, but in some cases, i don't think it should banned.

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Feb 23 2008, 02:34 AM

The option should always be open. (It would be weird to ban it.) But I agree with you. I don't understand why they think government should have control over you giving birth or not.

Posted by: Tamacracker Feb 23 2008, 02:40 AM

QUOTE(resplendence @ Feb 23 2008, 02:19 AM) *

^I'm prochoice. I understand that people make mistakes. They should be responsible but noone ever does what they should.

I just don't think it's right for me or anyone else to decide what someone else should do with their body. If I say women don't have rights to their body and reproduction, I'm essentially depriving myself of any type of rights to my own.

It's a two way street. You take someone else's rights away, you give up your own.



So you admit that in a sense that's complete selfishness. To murder a human being that belongs to you and your body, because it's your body.

Even though you knew for a fact that there's a percentage or a possibility that you could get pregnant. Yeah?


Let's clarify what selfishness is, for the young and uneducated:

selfishness:
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

3. concerned chiefly or only with oneself

4. stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others


QUOTE(brooklyneast05 @ Feb 23 2008, 02:26 AM) *
i duno why a woman should have to go through 9 months of that and risk her health for something she didn't consent to at all.


If she wouldn't consent to it, then why the hell would she fornicate in the first place?

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Feb 23 2008, 02:43 AM

This stood out to me when I was skimming through the topic. Wow.

QUOTE
And why should a single mother have a baby she doesn't want? Especially if she's been raped. There are reasons why abortion is legal in most places. Those people there aren't idiots, most of them.

QUOTE
Ok, I'm sorry, but this is a very ignorant statement. Often times I find myself not wanting my little sister. Does that give me the right to kill her? Sometimes I don't feel like dealing with my dog. Does that mean I should kill him? So, basically, you're saying if someone doesn't "want" something, they can just kill it off or get rid of it in some form. One word: Adoption. If the woman does not want to keep the child that she had because of rape, she can put it up for adoption. It solves both issues. In the end, the woman does not have the child and the child still gets a chance at life. It's a win win situation.

Posted by: synkro Feb 23 2008, 03:37 AM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Feb 22 2008, 11:40 PM) *
If she wouldn't consent to it, then why the hell would she fornicate in the first place?


uh he was referring to the post right above his, which stated that women who are raped should be willing to carry the baby for 9 months and just put it up for adoption.

of course i agree that people should accept the consequences for their actions; people should not just be randomly f**king, expecting to not take responsibility in becoming parents. however, i also believe no man has a right to decide what a woman can do to her body.

when the day comes that a male would be able and willing to conceive and give birth, get back to me.

Posted by: NoSex Feb 23 2008, 05:26 AM

QUOTE(Acid Bath Slayer @ Jul 23 2006, 01:06 PM) *
QUOTE(ECD & C0 @ Jul 23 2006, 1:38 PM) *
the baby is alive and helpless the mother is required to take resposiblility for what is haping to her body. rape or not its her job to give birth to it then she can give it up for adoption.


An animal is alive and helpless, however they have no right to life. So, the qualities of being alive and helpless do not exactly equate a right to life, or any rights for that matter. I would argue that a fetus is so impersonal, worthless, and so little sentient that it is not much unlike a common animal. In fact, in many cases, the common animal is far more human-like than a fetus. Just as I have no ill feelings in knowing that animals are killed for the convienence and comfort of specific types of food, I have no ill feelings in knowing that unborn children are being aborted at the will of their mother. Until that child is born, our society has no real way to recognize it as having personhood and rights with it. Once the child is born, the mother takes a legal obligation towards its well-being, this is meaningful and useful. However, forcing a mother to treat an unborn child as if it were a full-fledged person, just like you or I, is inherently rediculous as the unborn child is so little like you or I.


1. I think selfishness is a virtue.
2. The idea that a woman should "take responsibility" is, I suspect, just another manifest of the patriarchal society we live in, and further:
3. Is immensely short-sighted and revealing, as it accepts a sick form of retribution in ignoring the reality that the mother is not the only person effected in a pregnancy. If we care so much for the child, why isn't anyone talking about the repercussions felt by the child itself.
4. No one is recognizing the reality that a fetus is not at all equitable to a fully cognitive and capable human being. Would you trust a baby with your tax return?
5. This is a larger issue of social control, one that most people aren't recognizing either.
6. The government has no express right to control the body of a human being, at least, if we ever care to call ourselves "free."
7. The sexual repression inherent in the idea that any act of sex is a consent to pregnancy and "taking it to term" is absurdest and "un-American."
8. The hypocrisy of the idea that a "murder" is alright in the circumstance of rape, but not alright in any other case is spell-bindingly repugnant. To wish to impose an ethical standard as the "value of the un-born child," but to turn it over on its side and f**k it is not only stupid, it's also immensely revealing.
9. Beyond it being a hypocritical stance, it also a legal mess. How could one determine whether or a not a woman had been raped, and what would grant the state such a right?

QUOTE
when the day comes that a male would be able and willing to conceive and give birth, get back to me.


As much as patriarchy is involved in this issue, it isn't like men alone are fighting against the idea of abortion. Women, just as much as men, want to stop this "slaughter." If anything, you should be more concerned about the church leaders implanting these ideas in the heads of their sheep-like followers.


Posted by: brooklyneast05 Feb 23 2008, 01:01 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Feb 23 2008, 03:40 AM) *
If she wouldn't consent to it, then why the hell would she fornicate in the first place?

as someone else said, i was talking about the subject at hand in the post above mine, which was rape victims. as far as i can tell, rape victims don't consent to it.

Posted by: Steven Feb 23 2008, 01:06 PM

No no, you've got it all wrong JC. The rape victims are the perpetrators and the rapists are being victimized by society.

Posted by: resplendence Feb 23 2008, 04:25 PM

QUOTE(Tamacracker @ Feb 23 2008, 02:40 AM) *
So you admit that in a sense that's complete selfishness. To murder a human being that belongs to you and your body, because it's your body.

Even though you knew for a fact that there's a percentage or a possibility that you could get pregnant. Yeah?
Let's clarify what selfishness is, for the young and uneducated:

selfishness:
1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

3. concerned chiefly or only with oneself

4. stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others
If she wouldn't consent to it, then why the hell would she fornicate in the first place?



The demographic of people who get abortions list a) not being financially able to care for a baby or b) not able/not prepared to be a mother.

Do you really think people who come from those demographics would be able to provide a stable home to a baby? A baby cost over $10,000 in the first year. Not to mention prenatal care and regular checkups for the baby's health.

And even if they give up the baby, not all of the babies will get adopted. I posted a link about adoption statistics. Thousands of babies are left unadopted. And with people looking into fertility treatments or going overseas to adopt, the ones born in America aren't guaranteed to find a happy home. Even if someone argues that at least, even if they're in foster homes or orphanages, they are alive and can do being alive stuff. However, in many urban cities, the Child Services system is severely overtaxed with overloaded workers and a thin budget.

If you want the women to accept responsibilities, fine. Just think about the situation the baby gets put into. Unless you can guarantee:

1) The baby will get a happy home when put up for adoption.
2) The women will get adequate help if she decides to keep their baby. Which means, the father should be held accountable for the cost of raising a child. Like under law accountable (since you're forcing the women to be mothers, you have to force the other half to be fathers). Also, if the father isn't there, the government should provided welfare.

I don't understand why so many people have such a hard time accepting an abortion "industry" with really strict guidelines. Like, you can only have 1-2 in your lifetime and go through extensive counseling and only before the 9 weeks mark or have a damn good excuse like the baby is eating you alive.


Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 10:20 AM

QUOTE
your perspective is skewed. you go on and on about the degradation of america and its government, yet you condone public execution. i find it funny how you overtly state your disdain for capitalism and communism, but some of your opinions of what should and shouldn't be acceptable can be found in both.

anyway, my opinion on the fake article: personally, i don't have a problem with it. i'm about 70% pro-choice, which basically means, although i would find it unnecessary and idiotic to have an abortion when the pregnancy is a result from engaging in consensual sexual intercourse (or, as in the article, any form in which the woman is intentionally impregnating herself), i still believe the would-be mother has the right to abort. maybe it's because i don't believe a fetus is fully "alive" until ~third trimester, but that's discussion for another thread. ;o


Don't live things grow, move, eat, breathe, sleep, feel emotions, and feel pain? Well a fetus does all that well before the third trimester. I condone public exiction. It is a punishment in which someone has been found guilty of an extreme crime. Yet abortion is still leagal when the fetus does nothing; it didn't ask to be here. The fact of the matter is the fetus is here because the mother had sex. A fetus is more than "just a fetus" it is a living breathing baby who is completley innocent and can not defend itself in anyway. There are other alternatives to abortion. It's called ADOPTION. If the mother doesn't want the baby she should give it to someone who despratley wants to have a baby but can't. Remember, you were "just a fetus" too.




 

Posted by: superstitious Apr 19 2008, 10:31 AM

While it's true that a fetus is a living organism, it is up the individual to choose whether or not aborting is an option. They will have to live with the consequences (morally and otherwise).

It's not that I don't understand your stance, I do. I just don't agree with the idea that a woman should be forced to carry a child to term and go through adoption procedures because of the moral standards of others.

I am not saying that abortion is necessarily right, I'm saying that choice is right. Yes, an individual chooses to have sex and yes, there may be consequences from such an encounter. But who are you to play judge and jury? Stay strong in your own convictions, but don't force them on others.

Posted by: misoshiru Apr 19 2008, 10:35 AM

wow. way to try and force your beliefs on others. i hate people like that. it's f**king annoying.

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Apr 19 2008, 10:56 AM

I can see where you're coming from. I mean, I'm agaisnt abortion but I don't believe it should be banned everywhere. It really is up to the mothers choice. All babies want to be born, but if the mother's not ready, what can you do? People are different. shrug.gif They will always believe in different things.

Posted by: doughnut Apr 19 2008, 11:38 AM

i agree with everyone one here, abortion or or not, its the mothers choice

Posted by: S-Majere Apr 19 2008, 12:46 PM

I had to click on this link just because of the word 'graphic'. There's long standing debate on abortion in the http://www.createblog.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142949&hl=abortion for anyone interested in reading a million and one pages of views, opinions, facts and philosophical musings.

Posted by: misoshiru Apr 19 2008, 12:49 PM

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 19 2008, 11:20 PM) *
Don't live things feel emotions?

and how would you know that they feel emotions? have you actually been able to ask a fetus how it's feeling that day? "so fetus, what's it like in there for you today?" something like that? no.

Posted by: SilentLaugh Apr 19 2008, 01:06 PM

QUOTE(superstitious @ Apr 19 2008, 11:31 AM) *
While it's true that a fetus is a living organism, it is up the individual to choose whether or not aborting is an option. They will have to live with the consequences (morally and otherwise).

agreed.

ive seen the second pic before. it was in my friends executive summary about how she thinks abortion is wrong.

Posted by: kryogenix Apr 19 2008, 02:44 PM

QUOTE(superstitious @ Apr 19 2008, 11:31 AM) *
While it's true that a fetus is a living organism, it is up the individual to choose whether or not aborting is an option.

It's up to them if they want the baby murdered?

Anyway, go to the abortion thread, don't post this here.

DUDE, THEY HAVE FINGERNAILS

Posted by: Spencer Apr 19 2008, 02:46 PM

ALL BABIES WANT TO GET BORNED!

Posted by: superstitious Apr 19 2008, 03:02 PM

QUOTE(kryogenix @ Apr 19 2008, 02:44 PM) *
It's up to them if they want the baby murdered?

Essentially, that is exactly what I'm saying.

Topic merged with Debate abortion thread.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 06:52 PM

QUOTE(Arjuna Capulong @ Jul 16 2006, 12:51 PM) *
At first, I thought abortion should be outlawed.

Though, now that I think about it, it makes more sense that it should be allowed.

Like, forza up there, I don't like the idea of ending a baby's life, but it may be better than letting it live a horrible life. Not to mention it could ruin the mother's life, when in school and the such.

And I guess it would help prevent the population from going up so fast.
People keep saying, "Quality of quantity."



There is this thing called adoption you know

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 06:56 PM

QUOTE(misoshiru @ Apr 19 2008, 12:49 PM) *
and how would you know that they feel emotions? have you actually been able to ask a fetus how it's feeling that day? "so fetus, what's it like in there for you today?" something like that? no.



haven't you ever heard of the baby being stressed when the mother is carrying the child? That contributes to a abnormally fast heartbeat in the baby. hmmm... stressed is an emotion last time i checked.

Posted by: doughnut Apr 19 2008, 07:02 PM

i dont think it would be for the better good if bringing the baby into the world would ruin the lives of the mother, the baby, and possibly people around them.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 07:28 PM

and how could the mother possibly know that, i was adopted. My mother had my sister when she was 14 and gave her up for adoption and had me when she was 16 and gave me up for adoption. My sister and i met for the first time a couple of months ago and our lives have been just fine.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 07:29 PM

QUOTE(misoshiru @ Apr 19 2008, 10:35 AM) *
wow. way to try and force your beliefs on others. i hate people like that. it's f**king annoying.



isn't this a debate? i was stating my case. take it how you want but it's how i feel.

Posted by: chocokissez Apr 19 2008, 07:37 PM

I don't think abortion is right or wrong, it's all about the individual. You can't just say "abortion is wrong" and "you can give the baby up for adoption" to everything as a solution or something, because you can't always find willing parents to adopt, sometimes they don't want to have to carry the baby for 9 months and have to go through a lot of trouble. I saw that you're adopted, and that's great, and your mother had you at 14 or something and thats good, but not everyone is like that and you should be able to accept that, you're old enough.

You can't just force your opinions on people and expect them to just convert to and agree with you right away. That's not the way to go about it. Choices, choices. That's what it's all about.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 07:55 PM

The waiting list to adopt a child is Very long. I have a friend who is trying to adopt and it took my parents 2 years to get me. They were going to adopt from another country because they couldn't find an american baby.

i'm not forcing my opinion on anyone, i don't expect people to convert to and agree with what i'm saying i'm just saying how i feel. I think i may feel stronger on this issue than most people in this thread because i have am only 21 and have 2 children of my own and i couldn't imagine aborting them.

Posted by: chocokissez Apr 19 2008, 07:56 PM

That may be, but not everyone else is like that.
Some people are cold-hearted, and some couldn't imagine aborting a child, like yourself.

People are different and you just have to let them make their own decisions.

Posted by: doughnut Apr 19 2008, 08:10 PM

sometimes its not about being cold hearted, more like being rational.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 19 2008, 09:14 PM

QUOTE(chocokissez @ Apr 19 2008, 07:56 PM) *
That may be, but not everyone else is like that.
Some people are cold-hearted, and some couldn't imagine aborting a child, like yourself.

People are different and you just have to let them make their own decisions.



like i said before, i'm not trying to make decisions for other people.

Posted by: illmortal Apr 19 2008, 09:23 PM

QUOTE(misoshiru @ Apr 19 2008, 01:49 PM) *
and how would you know that they feel emotions? have you actually been able to ask a fetus how it's feeling that day? "so fetus, what's it like in there for you today?" something like that? no.

Oh please... don't use that argument. stubborn.gif

Posted by: doiink Apr 19 2008, 09:31 PM

^ and why not? it's a legitimate question that happens to refute your belief. don't say "don't use that argument" just because you can't argue against it.

Posted by: illmortal Apr 19 2008, 09:59 PM

QUOTE(doiink @ Apr 19 2008, 10:31 PM) *
^ and why not? it's a legitimate question that happens to refute your belief. don't say "don't use that argument" just because you can't argue against it.

So by those standards, you can murder a child as long as it can't comprehend nor speak back? It does take time for a child to develop emotions or consciousness even, after birth.

And if we're gonna speak about pain or the emotion of anguish... there's painless and fast deaths, does that mean it's ok to murder someone painlessly?

Posted by: Comptine Apr 19 2008, 10:00 PM

Because it is a dumb and irrational argument.

Cows and chickens definitely feel pain when they get slaughtered. Animals have shown to be emotional: aggression, sad, happiness.

If everything was based on how the thing feels, we should all be vegetarians.

In all other aspects of life we should be a little more humane. Children in other countries are SAD and UPSET because they are starving and dying. Maybe we should do something to you know, save them.

Just because it has the capacity to feel bad doesn't mean it deserves special treatment or be acknowledge as a real person.

Adoption is a great option but it's noe 100% perfect. Thousands of children, thousands, are left unadopted. If the amount of unwanted pregnancies carried to term were to increase, so would the number of unadopted children. The number of people seeking adoption would remain static since there already aren't enough people looking to adopt to begin with.

If a woman in Arizona decides to get an abortion, it would not affect me at all here on the East Coast. So why the hell would I want to vote to control her life? Even if she's from the same state, her getting an abortion (paying out of her own pocket) would not hurt me at all. So why would I or anyone else in a similar situation would want to intrude on someone else's life?

Just because they are doing something you don't like? Deal with it. There's always people doing shit you don't agree with (given that it's not actually illegal like murder and rape) but that does not give you any right to change it. You don't like your eggs scrambled? Okay, don't eat them. But you have no right to ban scrambled eggs from breakfast for everyone else.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 20 2008, 07:29 AM

QUOTE(Comptine @ Apr 19 2008, 10:00 PM) *
Because it is a dumb and irrational argument.

Cows and chickens definitely feel pain when they get slaughtered. Animals have shown to be emotional: aggression, sad, happiness.

If everything was based on how the thing feels, we should all be vegetarians.

In all other aspects of life we should be a little more humane. Children in other countries are SAD and UPSET because they are starving and dying. Maybe we should do something to you know, save them.

Just because it has the capacity to feel bad doesn't mean it deserves special treatment or be acknowledge as a real person.

Adoption is a great option but it's noe 100% perfect. Thousands of children, thousands, are left unadopted. If the amount of unwanted pregnancies carried to term were to increase, so would the number of unadopted children. The number of people seeking adoption would remain static since there already aren't enough people looking to adopt to begin with.

If a woman in Arizona decides to get an abortion, it would not affect me at all here on the East Coast. So why the hell would I want to vote to control her life? Even if she's from the same state, her getting an abortion (paying out of her own pocket) would not hurt me at all. So why would I or anyone else in a similar situation would want to intrude on someone else's life?

Just because they are doing something you don't like? Deal with it. There's always people doing shit you don't agree with (given that it's not actually illegal like murder and rape) but that does not give you any right to change it. You don't like your eggs scrambled? Okay, don't eat them. But you have no right to ban scrambled eggs from breakfast for everyone else.



Are you serious? You are comparing a baby to a chicken and a cow... food that we eat?? we don't eat babies... at least not in the USA.

Posted by: doughnut Apr 20 2008, 07:45 AM

are you saying the lives of cows and chickens are inferior to a human baby's?

Posted by: illmortal Apr 20 2008, 10:10 AM

QUOTE(doughnut @ Apr 20 2008, 08:45 AM) *
are you saying the lives of cows and chickens are inferior to a human baby's?

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 20 2008, 08:29 AM) *
Are you serious? You are comparing a baby to a chicken and a cow... food that we eat?? we don't eat babies... at least not in the USA.

Vegetarians could use that argument... so what's your argument then?

Posted by: NoSex Apr 20 2008, 10:36 AM

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 19 2008, 10:20 AM) *
Don't live things grow, move, eat, breathe, sleep, feel emotions, and feel pain? Well a fetus does all that well before the third trimester.



QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 20 2008, 07:29 AM) *
Are you serious? You are comparing a baby to a chicken and a cow... food that we eat??


Are you talking to yourself?

She was saying that most animals are better qualified to fit your "feeling" and "living" defense of the unborn child. If you're going to say that a fetus should be given the "right to life," because it "grows, moves, eats, etc. etc." you're also going to be required, if you have any hope of not being identified as a hypocrite, to extend that "right to life," to non-human animals (many of which "feel" much more than any fetus).

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 20 2008, 10:55 AM

QUOTE(NoSex @ Apr 20 2008, 10:36 AM) *
Are you talking to yourself?

She was saying that most animals are better qualified to fit your "feeling" and "living" defense of the unborn child. If you're going to say that a fetus should be given the "right to life," because it "grows, moves, eats, etc. etc." you're also going to be required, if you have any hope of not being identified as a hypocrite, to extend that "right to life," to non-human animals (many of which "feel" much more than any fetus).


Babies are humans, there are laws against killing humans, not animals.

Posted by: superstitious Apr 20 2008, 11:04 AM

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 20 2008, 10:55 AM) *
Babies are humans, there are laws against killing humans, not animals.

Are the laws preventing the abortion of a fetus? There are court rulings that goes into specifics of certain procedures and policies, but is there a law?

As far as I understand, the law isn't what's being debated. It's a question of right or wrong (of course, whether or not the law is right or wrong does blend into the argument).

My point is, bringing up "laws" doesn't counter anything that is being asked. Nate (and others) are simply saying that if you believe that the killing of something that can "grow, move, eat, breathe, sleep, feel emotions, and feel pain" is wrong, since animals fall into that category as well, then the killing of animals is also wrong by your definition of a living being.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 20 2008, 11:23 AM

QUOTE(superstitious @ Apr 20 2008, 11:04 AM) *
Are the laws preventing the abortion of a fetus? There are court rulings that goes into specifics of certain procedures and policies, but is there a law?

As far as I understand, the law isn't what's being debated. It's a question of right or wrong (of course, whether or not the law is right or wrong does blend into the argument).

My point is, bringing up "laws" doesn't counter anything that is being asked. Nate (and others) are simply saying that if you believe that the killing of something that can "grow, move, eat, breathe, sleep, feel emotions, and feel pain" is wrong, since animals fall into that category as well, then the killing of animals is also wrong by your definition of a living being.


I was simply stating the superiority of humans vs animals. And the definition of a living being is more complex than that. I'm talking about a human baby not animals because the name of this thread is Abortion Version Two, not are animals equal to humans.

Posted by: illmortal Apr 20 2008, 11:24 AM

Killing benevolence at any stage of life should not be allowed, period.

Posted by: chocokissez Apr 20 2008, 11:33 AM

^ agreed.
IMO, at least.
But, `tweeti, it's not your place to say that humans are superior to animals, and i'm not trying to turn this into the "killing animals is wrong" thread, but you have no place to say that killing humans is wrong and that killing animals isn't.
/rant

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 20 2008, 11:38 AM

sorry i thought this was a debate. I'm not saying it's ok to go kill a cat on the side of the street just because. My view on killing animals is for food.

Posted by: doughnut Apr 21 2008, 04:13 AM

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 21 2008, 12:23 AM) *
I was simply stating the superiority of humans vs animals.

i'm sorry this is off-topic, but i fine that statement pretty insane. its all my opinion though.

Posted by: Tweeti Apr 21 2008, 02:08 PM

QUOTE(doughnut @ Apr 21 2008, 04:13 AM) *
i'm sorry this is off-topic, but i fine that statement pretty insane. its all my opinion though.



why?

Posted by: NoSex Apr 21 2008, 07:14 PM

QUOTE(Tweeti @ Apr 20 2008, 11:23 AM) *
I was simply stating the superiority of humans vs animals. And the definition of a living being is more complex than that. I'm talking about a human baby not animals because the name of this thread is Abortion Version Two, not are animals equal to humans.


We were showing a discrepancy in your argument. Your argument for "right of life," in inclusive of non-human animals. In fact, from a scientific standpoint, some insects have more of the qualities you presented than some of the stages of a unborn child. So, even if you're trying to argue for a "human baby," you have to realize that your argument is widely inclusive (it extends outside of your mere intention). And, because of that discrepancy (and now obvious contradiction), your argument fails.

You can't have your cake and eat too.

Posted by: Comptine Apr 22 2008, 11:10 AM

Everyone basically said what my point was.

If you're going to argue that we can't kill a fetus because it has feelings, then that principle has to be extended to all living beings that have feelings. The main point is that the fetus feels sad/pain when it dies/aborted. So why is the fetus' pain more important or significant than any other animal's pain/suffering?

You obviously do not argue based on science or any other substantial beliefs. it's, "AWW... the poor babies! Think of them! It's bad. It's wrong. It's what I believe so I'll force it on other people."

How about:
-Thousands of children get left unadopted in our child services systems. Budgeting for these services are getting a severe cut and the workers are already overloaded without new ones being trained.
- The demographic for abortions is for underprivileged and low-income places. It would be fine if people had the resources to help them care for the children but welfare is VERY lacking in this situation.
- MILLIONS! MILLIONS! Millions of children that are fully developed and out of the womb are suffering around the world. They are sick and hungry and dying. They are consciously suffering and there's no real end until they die. A fetus is never fully conscious and its suffering does not last more than a few seconds. You are advocating for protection of the kids. How it's wrong to cause them pain. What about these children? Aren't they in pain too?

Instead of getting all riled up on kids that don't exist yet, why not focus that attention on kids that really do need it?

Posted by: illmortal Apr 22 2008, 11:26 AM

Apparently it's ok to kill a child even after birth... the latest at age 2. Because it takes them about 2 years to realize emotions, personalities etc... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Peter Singer has a strong point. lol He's a leader of ethics as well

Posted by: Comptine Apr 22 2008, 11:37 AM

Was that a rebuttal to my point?

I'm not saying that we should kill things that don't have feelings. I'm saying that it's a horrible principle to base your argument on; that if it has feelings, don't kill it.

Posted by: illmortal Apr 22 2008, 11:38 AM

No. Was adding more to the thread.

Posted by: LoveToMySilas Apr 22 2008, 11:45 AM

QUOTE(illmortal @ Apr 22 2008, 12:26 PM) *
Apparently it's ok to kill a child even after birth... the latest at age 2. Because it takes them about 2 years to realize emotions, personalities etc... o.O

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Peter Singer has a strong point. lol He's a leader of ethics as well
I find that really hard to believe. I'm sure a baby realizes emotions and personalities WAY before 2 years old. I mean, even as a newborn, a baby can tell whos the one taking care of them and when they're not happ.

Posted by: illmortal Apr 22 2008, 12:19 PM

QUOTE(LoveToMySilas @ Apr 22 2008, 12:45 PM) *
I find that really hard to believe. I'm sure a baby realizes emotions and personalities WAY before 2 years old. I mean, even as a newborn, a baby can tell whos the one taking care of them and when they're not happ.

Read up on Peter Singer's point of view... psychologically, scientifically, socially, lol almost winning my agreement.