ABORTION VERSION TWO Options

[sadolakced acid]

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

[forza]

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).

[AngelinaTaylor]

Uhh it's not closed...

[Simba]

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."

[*ECD & C0*]

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

[AngelinaTaylor]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

What's wrong with sticking with the other thread?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[smoke]

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.

^ 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.

[forza]

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.

[smoke]

^ 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.

[forza]

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

[Melissawilson5]

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.

[forza]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[*ECD & C0*]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[smoke]

^ 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.

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. :\

[AngelinaTaylor]

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..

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[Melissawilson5]

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.

Dude are you trying to annoy me ??

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[NoSex]

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?

[smoke]

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.

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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?

[forza]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[Melissawilson5]

^^^


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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

^^^
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.

[smoke]

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.

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.

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[Melissawilson5]

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

[AngelinaTaylor]

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".

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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?

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.

[forza]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[smoke]

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.

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. 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.

I never said you were stupid. 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.

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? 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.

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. 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! 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.

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.

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...

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. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[smoke]

^ 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.

[cashmere deer]

^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.

[smoke]

^ 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. 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.

[forza]

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.

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:

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:

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":

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.

[cashmere deer]

^ 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. 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.

[radhikaeatsraman]

^ 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.

[cashmere deer]

^^ 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?

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[Melissawilson5]

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

[forza]

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

That is all.

[Melissawilson5]

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

[forza]

^^^ 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.

EDIT// This smiley is more appropriate.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[radhikaeatsraman]

Mells-Star:

Read the rules 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. 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.

[*disco infiltrator*]

^^^ 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.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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?

[*disco infiltrator*]

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.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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

[*baby_in_blue*]

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

[no-name]

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

[smoke]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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

[ChaosPunx]

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.

[*ECD & C0*]

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.

[NoSex]

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.

[*kryogenix*]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[emanni]

One word.
Adopiton.
Its better than killing a Human Being.
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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

^ 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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[forza]

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:

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.

[*I Shot JFK*]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[*ECD & C0*]

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

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[Comptine]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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,

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.

[Comptine]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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:

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)

[msladyliberty]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

^ 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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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...

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?

[radhikaeatsraman]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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)..

[cashmere deer]

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.

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[cashmere deer]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

.
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.

[cashmere deer]

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

[AngelinaTaylor]

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.

[sadolakced acid]

...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.

[xnarcotic]

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.