Search forums

Forums

Export thread

hot Topic: Obama to reverse "gag rule" on abortion

Jan 23, 2009#1

Chibibar

Ok.. this is a hot topic. I know we have our views, but hopefully we can keep it civilize (or might as well lock and delete

)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/ap_ ... tion_ban_8

I can understand both side on the issue. Basically it open fund from Tax-payers money to help alternative, information and possible abortion.

How is this increase/decrease abortion? if people want to abort, they will find a way. Without help, you have these back ally doctors do their stuff and cause more harm than good. Family planning is not all about abortion. There are other information they can provide and alternative (like adoption and stuff)

Two of my "sisters" (female friends who I consider sisters) had abortion due to health issues, but they did consult with family planning and if it wasn't health issue, adoption was one of the way they suggest, but it was not an option for them

I feel that information will help people make better decision than just let them try to find solution themselves and might end up the wrong decisions.

Jan 23, 2009#2

Hylian

Jan 23, 2009#3

Scarlet Varlet

I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

Jan 23, 2009#4

Espy

I dunno man... isn't this about taxpayer money being sent overseas (or at least to other countries) in the end? No matter what the money is for we need to look very carefully at whether or not it should be spent here at home taking care of those who need it. (I'm not saying we shouldn't send money overseas, just that we should also make sure our priorities are right, that's all.)

Oh and abortion thread! IBL! :Leyla:

Jan 23, 2009#5

Chibibar

Scarlet Varlet said:
I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Click to expand...

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

It is interesting to see the "hindsight" of the ban. This ban led to scientist to find OTHER means to create/produce stem cells. At least from different source. So I guess in my opinion, not all bans are "bad"

Jan 23, 2009#6

Scarlet Varlet

Chibibar said:
Scarlet Varlet said:

I see the US FDA is letting some stem cell work proceed - Link

FRIDAY, Jan. 23 (HealthDay News) -- The first human trial using embryonic stem cells as a medical treatment has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Click to expand...

Perhaps now California can move on that stem cell research thing people here voted for years ago.

Click to expand...

It is interesting to see the "hindsight" of the ban. This ban led to scientist to find OTHER means to create/produce stem cells. At least from different source. So I guess in my opinion, not all bans are "bad"

IIRC researchers found some limitations of Adult Stem Cells. As they were being barred from using Embryonic cells, obtained by whatever means were deemed unethical, that work was proceeding in countries where government left researchers unfettered.

I'm sure they went about as far as they could, now they can go the other direction and use what they have already learned. On the surface it doesn't look like much of a loss, unless they find they could have progress much faster without the hinderance.

Jan 23, 2009#7

Chibibar

Scarlet Varlet said:
IIRC researchers found some limitations of Adult Stem Cells. As they were being barred from using Embryonic cells, obtained by whatever means were deemed unethical, that work was proceeding in countries where government left researchers unfettered.

I'm sure they went about as far as they could, now they can go the other direction and use what they have already learned. On the surface it doesn't look like much of a loss, unless they find they could have progress much faster without the hinderance.

That is true. I remember reading about getting cells from umbilical cord, adult cells, and skin. I remember that some studies of getting cells from other animals (like cows)

Jan 23, 2009#8

As an adopted person, I have my own views on abortion. Having said that, I'm not vociferously anti-abortion, either. I think it should be used only in cases of health, incest or rape but as it's legal I'm not going to decry those who get the procedure or call them names.

I personally think it's wrong in most cases, but that's just me.

And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

Jan 23, 2009#9

Espy

Edrondol said:
And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

Go to hell you abortion loving bastard! Rabble rabble rabble rabble!

Jan 23, 2009#10

Philosopher B.

Abortion threads? Smoking threads? This is just like old times. :teeth:

Jan 23, 2009#11

Scarlet Varlet

Edrondol said:
As an adopted person, I have my own views on abortion. Having said that, I'm not vociferously anti-abortion, either. I think it should be used only in cases of health, incest or rape but as it's legal I'm not going to decry those who get the procedure or call them names.

I personally think it's wrong in most cases, but that's just me.

And on that note I'm headed home. It'll be interesting to see how long this thread stays civil.

The more I think about this (shows how often I do) I recall one of the objections on embryonic research revolved, not around abortion

, but upon the creation of embryos in the laboratory. There are religious views

that "human life begins at conception", belief life is the devine

right the diety

. Invoking the diety

to grant life to an embryo and then may be harvest it, possibly for business or personal gain, is an outrage

.

I think that's about where things were left off, though I may be incompleat or just wrong in parts. Take with granule of NaCl.

Jan 23, 2009#12

Singularity.EXE

IBL

Jan 23, 2009#13

Dusty668

Hasn't the "gag rule" rule flipped with each change of party in the white house since it was made?

Jan 23, 2009#14

Scarlet Varlet

Dusty668 said:
Hasn't the "gag rule" rule flipped with each change of party in the white house since it was made?

When the Conservative Party (Republicans) began looking toward the sizeable Religious Right they gave many of their pet peeves some lip service, if not outright support. When someone of the Religious Right (Bush) became president it became more than simply lip service, a lot of it became, if not law, then how law was carried out by the Chief Executive (hey, the president is and executive.) Were the Supreme Court to mandate he do something in a particular way then he would have to, but otherwise he did as he felt proper. I saw somewhere else that foreign aid will no long be as strict on "family planning" measures as under Bush.

Jan 23, 2009#15

HoboNinja

Planned Parenthood already gets over $100,000,000 each year from taxes with the Title X program and Medicaid...

...This does piss me off.

I realize Abortion probably won't be made illegal again but in no way, shape, or form should the government be using my fucking tax money to help these bastards.

That seems like a reasonable request right? You can keep your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Jan 23, 2009#16

strawman

I decided not to post about this earlier, because, as you know, IB4Lock.

However, it interests me because:

This is the most pressing thing that Obama had to get done first and fast. He had his staff spending time prior to inauguration writing this up and getting it all set so he could deal with it practically on day one.

Even though it's apparently more important than many other things on his plate, it should be tempered by the fact that it's simply a reversal of what GWB did, which was a reversal of what WJC did, which is a reversal of what Reagan did.

Allowing funding of social programs that benefit only non US citizens that have as part of their counseling or treatment abortion.

Admittedly many of the other matters that are truly more pressing than that may take more time to draft, deal with the various branches involved, etc, etc.

But it does demonstrate what he feels is most important.

No matter how you cut it, counseling programs for non us citizens are not what he should be spending time and resources on given everything else he is dealing with. He should have put it off for a few weeks and done it within a stack of the hundreds of things he's going to sign to reverse or modify previous presidential actions.

As far as the issue of abortion itself? No abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health. I needn't explain why - you can find arguments for and against it all over the internet. Yes, it is a social issue, not a privacy issue.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#17

JCM

My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

Jan 23, 2009#18

zero

JCM said:
My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

I had precisely that opinion until a friend asked me "Well, and what if a woman pregnant with YOUR child wants to have an abortion?"

I had no answer back then... I still don't...

Jan 23, 2009#19

GasBandit

It may surprise some in here to learn that I am in fact pro-abortion. I am in favor of anything that kills more humans. (thbump-tssh)...

Ok, in all seriousness... I am pro choice. Yes, aborting a fetus is ending a life, I agree. But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life. Some claim that killing a fetus is the same as killing a child, but I disagree. I don't think the unborn is a child any more than a child is an adult. It's a completely separate 3rd stage. You don't legally treat a child as an adult, so I don't see the problem with treating a fetus legally different from a child.

However, I don't think public funds should be put to abortions. It's not an abortion thing, it's a socialism thing.

Jan 23, 2009#20

Calleja

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

Hell, Firefox History found the link for me:

http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/01/21 ... -question/

You see it for yourself.

Jan 23, 2009#21

B

babeltek

Can someone please explain why a non-governmental organization like Planned Parenthood gets a third of its budget from the government when the services it provides aren't being used by the government (as opposed to private businesses that build rocket parts, etc.)? Does it have anything to do with its non-profit status?

Jan 23, 2009#22

zero

GasBandit said:
But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life.

Easy on the "we've established" and "capital punishment". I don't think many will argue against self-defense, but capital punishment is far from being a consensus...

Jan 23, 2009#23

strawman

Calleja said:
The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

To avoid others having to click through to read a single sentence. :eyeroll:

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

Either way, it doesn't matter. Who cares when the death occurs, who cares what the punishment is? It's either a woman's choice, or it's inappropriate loss of life - the rest can be sorted out once a determination has been made.

As of right now, our society's determination is that it's a woman's choice.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#24

zero

Calleja said:
The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Click to expand...

Geez, you "common law" guys, how do your legal system even work?

From the Brazilian penal code (lousy translation mine):

Article 125 - To cause abortion on yourself or to allow someone else to do it:
Detention, from one to tree years.

Jan 23, 2009#25

makare

zero said:
Calleja said:

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Geez, you "common law" guys, how do your legal system even work?

From the Brazilian penal code (lousy translation mine):
[quote:2869ui2a]
Article 125 - To cause abortion on yourself or to allow someone else to do it:
Detention, from one to tree years.

[/quote:2869ui2a]

I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

Jan 23, 2009#26

zero

makare1 said:
I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

Yes, as I get it, abortion is legal in the USA, right?
It just surprised me that the "big disarming question" was something rather banal such as "what should be the penalty for the crime."

Jan 23, 2009#27

Calleja

wathc the video in the article.

And to the a few days thing.. it certainly matters, that's like saying "one vote doesn't count" fuck that, of course it does.

Jan 23, 2009#28

makare

zero said:
makare1 said:

I don't think abortion is covered under common law at all. The common law used the born alive rule killing a fetus was not a crime.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I get it, abortion is legal in the USA, right?
It just surprised me that the "big disarming question" was something rather banal such as "what should be the penalty for the crime."

I was just confused I guess. Our system today is not the "common law" we have redone alot of the old laws in favor of the model penal code.

Related to abortion though I was kind of surprised about the puritans having the born alive rule when they were so religious. Today the religious are generally the ones claiming that abortion is a sin and a crime. In some ways our society is more puritanical than the puritans'.

Jan 23, 2009#29

Chippy

HoboNinja said:
Planned Parenthood already gets over $100,000,000 each year from taxes with the Title X program and Medicaid...

...This does piss me off.

I realize Abortion probably won't be made illegal again but in no way, shape, or form should the government be using my fucking tax money to help these bastards.

That seems like a reasonable request right? You can keep your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Way to keep things civil.

Jan 23, 2009#30

Espy

stienman said:
Calleja said:

The other day someone, I think it was Straub, linked an article with pro-choice people finally disarming "pro-life" people, by simply asking one question:

Click to expand...

If abortion was illegal, what should be done with the women who have illegal abortions?

Click to expand...

To avoid others having to click through to read a single sentence. :eyeroll:

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

Either way, it doesn't matter. Who cares when the death occurs, who cares what the punishment is? It's either a woman's choice, or it's inappropriate loss of life - the rest can be sorted out once a determination has been made.

As of right now, our society's determination is that it's a woman's choice.

-Adam

Wow. Sure stumped me! Now I don't know if i hate abortion or luv it!?!

But really, thats a silly (and primarily an off topic) question. I have no issue with anyone thinking abortion is the bees knees. Great. Rock on. I assume they can also, like a mature adult view things from other people's perspectives and allow for civil disagreement on the issue.
But that's just asking a hypothetical question that avoids the actual issue in order to say, "people who disagree with me are stoopid!" Which doesn't really help anyone understand the others viewpoint.

Jan 23, 2009#31

zero

makare1 said:
Our system today is not the "common law" we have redone alot of the old laws in favor of the model penal code.

Oh snap! My prejudice, sorry... Feel free to ask about monkeys roaming our streets any time...

Jan 23, 2009#32

R

Raemon777

This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

I don't know anyone who supports abortion that late. Third trimester abortions are already illegal from what I know, and my own opinion is that we should legally treat them as human beings after the brain has developed.

GasBandit said:
Yes, aborting a fetus is ending a life, I agree. But we've already established that under certain circumstances (self defense, capital punishment) it is acceptable to take a human life. Some claim that killing a fetus is the same as killing a child, but I disagree. I don't think the unborn is a child any more than a child is an adult. It's a completely separate 3rd stage. You don't legally treat a child as an adult, so I don't see the problem with treating a fetus legally different from a child.

However, I don't think public funds should be put to abortions. It's not an abortion thing, it's a socialism thing.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, which actually makes sense to me.

I assume you'd be against federal funding for international groups in general. So the question is whether we're actually spending more money or merely dividing it up differently.

Jan 23, 2009#33

The Lovely Boehner

HoboNinja said:
your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Jan 23, 2009#34

Chippy

Espy said:
But really, thats a silly (and primarily an off topic) question. I have no issue with anyone thinking abortion is the bees knees. Great. Rock on. I assume they can also, like a mature adult view things from other people's perspectives and allow for civil disagreement on the issue.
But that's just asking a hypothetical question that avoids the actual issue in order to say, "people who disagree with me are stoopid!" Which doesn't really help anyone understand the others viewpoint.

Exactly. I am pro-choice, but I can easily see why others would be against it, and I respect their right to disagree with it.

Edit: Ha. Nice image, Charlie.

Jan 23, 2009#35

Espy

Raemon777 said:
This question isn't the end-all be-all that it seems, though. A matching question for pro-choice would be, "If an abortion can happen a few days before birth, then why not a few days after birth? What difference does a few days make?"

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who supports abortion that late.

Well, when presented with this tough issue, our new President, who isn't afraid to make the hard decisions, well, according to N.O.W. he rolled back his sleeves and gritted his teeth and voted, "Present".
So I guess we know where he stands. :bush:

Chippy said:
Edit: Ha. Nice image, Charlie.

Nice image? GREAT image.

thhp:

Jan 23, 2009#36

B

babeltek

I guess no one knows the answer to my question off the top of their heads... I'll do some internet searching to see what I come up with

Jan 23, 2009#37

A

Amy old

I find myself aligning with GB on this one.

So no argument there.

Jan 23, 2009#38

Troll

Hi there, I'll be your troll for today. Today's specials are:

1) Abortion is wrong. Murdering babies is wrong, and the people who do it should be drug out to the street and shot. It's just a way for sluts to fix their mistakes when they should have been more responsible. I can't believe our government allows genocide like this to go on. It should be made illegal immediately.

2) Abortion is a right in this country and should stay that way. Every time I hear those inbred redneck christians talk about how "immoral" it is, I want to puke. Or laugh. Women should have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. If other people don't like it, no one is forcing them to do it. I always find it funny that people who are "pro-life" are the biggest hypocrites, since they don't give a shit about helping families raise the children after birth.

Please choose the option above that offends you most, and respond with as much vitriol as possible. If you need any help, I'll return periodically to incite things as best I can. Thanks!

Jan 23, 2009#39

Chronos[Ha-G]

A Troll said:
Hi there, I'll be your troll for today. Today's specials are:

1) Abortion is wrong. Murdering babies is wrong, and the people who do it should be drug out to the street and shot. It's just a way for sluts to fix their mistakes when they should have been more responsible. I can't believe our government allows genocide like this to go on. It should be made illegal immediately.

2) Abortion is a right in this country and should stay that way. Every time I hear those inbred redneck christians talk about how "immoral" it is, I want to puke. Or laugh. Women should have a right to choose what to do with their own bodies. If other people don't like it, no one is forcing them to do it. I always find it funny that people who are "pro-life" are the biggest hypocrites, since they don't give a shit about helping families raise the children after birth.

Please choose the option above that offends you most, and respond with as much vitriol as possible. If you need any help, I'll return periodically to incite things as best I can. Thanks!

What if you're apathetic about the whole issue and don't really have an opinion on the subject?

...oh, right. Don't bother posting.

Jan 23, 2009#40

Troll

Chronos[Ha-G said:
]What if you're apathetic about the whole issue and don't really have an opinion on the subject?

...oh, right. Don't bother posting.

No no, you can post. I just can't troll you on this subject. You have to help me help you, people.

Jan 23, 2009#41

HoboNinja

Charlie Dont Surf said:
HoboNinja said:

your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Click to expand...

What? I am trying to fucking compromise here folks. Sure ideally to me abortion would be illegal but I am willing to come to some sort of middle ground. Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

Jan 23, 2009#42

Troll

HoboNinja said:
Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

You don't get to choose how your taxes are spent. That's not how it works, nor should it. You pay them, or you don't. If you don't, you don't get to consume government services.

Jan 23, 2009#43

Chippy

HoboNinja said:
Charlie Dont Surf said:

HoboNinja said:

your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What? I am trying to fucking compromise here folks. Sure ideally to me abortion would be illegal but I am willing to come to some sort of middle ground. Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

If you would have posted with a "I don't think taxpayer money should fund it", or even "I'm against it for these reasons..." I wouldn't have said anything. Instead, you come in here saying "I'm not funding these bastards!!!" and imply they are killing children. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

Jan 23, 2009#44

Espy

A Troll said:
HoboNinja said:

Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

Click to expand...

You don't get to choose how your taxes are spent. That's not how it works, nor should it. You pay them, or you don't. If you don't, you don't get to consume government services.

Yes you do. You elect representatives that choose how to spend that money and they represent your views. It is how it works and it should be how it works.

Jan 23, 2009#45

Troll

Espy said:
A Troll said:

HoboNinja said:

Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

Click to expand...

You don't get to choose how your taxes are spent. That's not how it works, nor should it. You pay them, or you don't. If you don't, you don't get to consume government services.

Click to expand...

Yes you do. You elect representatives that choose how to spend that money and they represent your views. It is how it works and it should be how it works.

Okay, yes. But I meant more along the lines of individuals who want to be able to say "Okay, I will allow my taxes to fund this and this, but not that, or that..."

Jan 23, 2009#46

makare

Espy said:
A Troll said:

HoboNinja said:

Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

Click to expand...

You don't get to choose how your taxes are spent. That's not how it works, nor should it. You pay them, or you don't. If you don't, you don't get to consume government services.

Click to expand...

Yes you do. You elect representatives that choose how to spend that money and they represent your views. It is how it works and it should be how it works.

That is not the same as YOU personally choosing where your money goes. You vote on a person and sometimes your person gets in sometimes he doesn't. Beyond that you don't get a choice. So either hobo should work harder to get his candidate elected or he should accept that all those millions he pays in taxes are out of his control.

Jan 23, 2009#47

zero

Calleja said:
wathc the video in the article.

Ok, I saw it, the pro-life people pictured on the video make no sense at all...

... but neither does the article! "Abortion is not murder therefore it shouldn't be criminalized"????? WTF????? To steal a car isn't murder either, and I hope it's still a crime in the USA!

Jan 23, 2009#48

makare

zero said:
Calleja said:

wathc the video in the article.

Click to expand...

Ok, I saw it, the pro-life people pictured on the video make no sense at all...

... but neither does the article! "Abortion is not murder therefore it shouldn't be criminalized"????? WTF????? To steal a car isn't murder either, and I hope it's still a crime in the USA!

What? The people who say abortion is a crime say it is the crime of murder. What other crime would it be.. lethal assault with a pointy thing?

Jan 23, 2009#49

Calleja

zero said:
Calleja said:

wathc the video in the article.

Click to expand...

Ok, I saw it, the pro-life people pictured on the video make no sense at all...

... but neither does the article! "Abortion is not murder therefore it shouldn't be criminalized"????? WTF????? To steal a car isn't murder either, and I hope it's still a crime in the USA!

Uh.. it shouldn't be criminalized as MURDER... y'know...cause it's not murder. Whether it's some other penalty is another question entirely.

Jan 23, 2009#50

JCM

zero said:
JCM said:

My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

Click to expand...

I had precisely that opinion until a friend asked me "Well, and what if a woman pregnant with YOUR child wants to have an abortion?"

Mind you, then its simple, you have a say in it.

However, the Pope doesnt.

Jan 23, 2009#51

zero

makare1 said:
What? The people who say abortion is a crime say it is the crime of murder. What other crime would it be.. lethal assault with a pointy thing?

Oh, no sir, on that you are not correct... For instance, in Brazil, abortion (with the few traditional exceptions, such as rape, incest, life-threatening pregnancy) IS a crime... But it is NOT murder (homicide, to be accurate). It is called... well, abortion (strictly speaking, "to cause abortion"... natural abortions are not criminalized, of course).

Calleja said:
Uh.. it shouldn't be criminalized as MURDER... y'know...cause it's not murder. Whether it's some other penalty is another question entirely.

Ah! Well, on that then the article and me can agree...

Jan 23, 2009#52

HoboNinja

Chippy said:
HoboNinja said:

Charlie Dont Surf said:

HoboNinja said:

your so called freedom of "choice" and I should not have to have my money soiled with the blood of children.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What? I am trying to fucking compromise here folks. Sure ideally to me abortion would be illegal but I am willing to come to some sort of middle ground. Keep it legal but don't spend any of the money I have contributed through taxes to fund the organizations that perform them.

Click to expand...

If you would have posted with a "I don't think taxpayer money should fund it", or even "I'm against it for these reasons..." I wouldn't have said anything. Instead, you come in here saying "I'm not funding these bastards!!!" and imply they are killing children. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

Well maybe I can't take anyone seriously that thinks it is alright to murder babies?

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views.

And obviously I don't mean just my personal tax money. Not everything is meant to be 100% literal. I don't want any tax funding for it because my taxes are part of the general pool of money that gets spread around to it. There is no reason that we should be funding a private business like that.

Jan 23, 2009#53

makare

zero said:
makare1 said:

What? The people who say abortion is a crime say it is the crime of murder. What other crime would it be.. lethal assault with a pointy thing?

Click to expand...

Oh, no sir, on that you are not correct... For instance, in Brazil, abortion (with the few traditional exceptions, such as rape, incest, life-threatening pregnancy) IS a crime... But it is NOT murder (homicide, to be accurate). It is called... well, abortion.

Well I don't live in Brazil and abortion would fall under a category of murder called feticide but still murder. If abortion was a crime it would be an intentional homicide which would be murder.

I highly doubt that the people who want to criminalize abortion, because they think it is murder, would be happy with a statue outlining abortion as a crime punishable with a lesser sentence.

Jan 23, 2009#54

Troll

HoboNinja said:
I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views. Mine happens to be completely wrong.

FTFY

Jan 23, 2009#55

HoboNinja

A Troll said:
HoboNinja said:

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views. Mine happens to be completely wrong.

Click to expand...

FTFY

*pats A Troll on the back*

Good work you are actually getting better at trolling. Here's a scooby snack.

*throws A Troll a scooby snack*

Jan 23, 2009#56

makare

HoboNinja said:
A Troll said:

HoboNinja said:

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views. Mine happens to be completely wrong.

Click to expand...

FTFY

Click to expand...

*pats A Troll on the back*

Good work you are actually getting better at trolling. Here's a scooby snack.

*throws A Troll a scooby snack*

He may be a troll but he is surprisingly astute.

Jan 23, 2009#57

Troll

HoboNinja said:
A Troll said:

HoboNinja said:

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views. Mine happens to be completely wrong.

Click to expand...

FTFY

Click to expand...

*pats A Troll on the back*

Good work you are actually getting better at trolling. Here's a scooby snack.

*throws A Troll a scooby snack*

Damn! So close!

Jan 23, 2009#58

Calleja

HoboNinja said:
I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views.

And obviously I don't mean just my personal tax money. Not everything is meant to be 100% literal. I don't want any tax funding for it because my taxes are part of the general pool of money that gets spread around to it. There is no reason that we should be funding a private business like that.

What they're saying, Hobo, is that you can't expect people to think you're trying to be civil when you come in raving about "baby blood". You don't agree with abortion, fine, no need to be an alarmist about it, it makes the tone of the conversation UNcivil.

Jan 23, 2009#59

Chippy

Calleja said:
HoboNinja said:

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views.

And obviously I don't mean just my personal tax money. Not everything is meant to be 100% literal. I don't want any tax funding for it because my taxes are part of the general pool of money that gets spread around to it. There is no reason that we should be funding a private business like that.

Click to expand...

What they're saying, Hobo, is that you can't expect people to think you're trying to be civil when you come in raving about "baby blood". You don't agree with abortion, fine, no need to be an alarmist about it, it makes the tone of the conversation UNcivil.

This.

Jan 23, 2009#60

HoboNinja said:
Well maybe I can't take anyone seriously that thinks it is alright to murder babies?

Maybe as others have said I can't take seriously anyone who comes to the argument with that kind of rhetoric.

Jan 23, 2009#61

Troll

Calleja said:
HoboNinja said:

I honestly believe that abortion directly results in the murder of a child, some people do not. Different people have different views.

And obviously I don't mean just my personal tax money. Not everything is meant to be 100% literal. I don't want any tax funding for it because my taxes are part of the general pool of money that gets spread around to it. There is no reason that we should be funding a private business like that.

Click to expand...

What they're saying, Hobo, is that you can't expect people to think you're trying to be civil when you come in raving about "baby blood". You don't agree with abortion, fine, no need to be an alarmist about it, it makes the tone of the conversation UNcivil.

The thing is, if that's what he believes it's what he believes. I mean, you can tell he has STRONG feelings on the matter. If he uses euphemisms or somehow censors his opinion, can he even accurately describe his thoughts? If he believes so strongly that abortion = murder, but just says something like "it's wrong," wouldn't that be giving a false impression to everyone else?

Like it or not, argue with it or don't, but I think he HAS to use phrases like that in this case to show his true passion for the argument.

(IMHO, obviously)

Jan 23, 2009#62

A Troll said:
If he uses euphemisms or somehow censors his opinion, can he even accurately describe his thoughts?

There's no need for either. One can word one's argument strongly but respectfully. Whether Hobo can, I haven't seen yet.

But I suppose there's no point, since he's already stated he has no respect for people who disagree with him. Why should I bother wasting my time debating with someone who automatically doesn't respect me because of my position on the debate?

Jan 23, 2009#63

HoboNinja

ZenMonkey said:
A Troll said:

If he uses euphemisms or somehow censors his opinion, can he even accurately describe his thoughts?

Click to expand...

There's no need for either. One can word one's argument strongly but respectfully. Whether Hobo can, I haven't seen yet.

But I suppose there's no point, since he's already stated he has no respect for people who disagree with him. Why should I bother wasting my time debating with someone who automatically doesn't respect me because of my position on the debate?

I was just back lashing at Chippy's post, he got my goat and I reacted immaturely. I try to hear the other side of the story as best I can without being biased. But one of the first things you learn in Speech class when doing a persuasive speech is that when people get their mind made up it is very hard to change.

I respect you Zen, honestly your posts here have made me view you as a very wise person but I could never agree with you on this issue I guess.

Jan 23, 2009#64

Chippy

HoboNinja said:
ZenMonkey said:

A Troll said:

If he uses euphemisms or somehow censors his opinion, can he even accurately describe his thoughts?

Click to expand...

There's no need for either. One can word one's argument strongly but respectfully. Whether Hobo can, I haven't seen yet.

But I suppose there's no point, since he's already stated he has no respect for people who disagree with him. Why should I bother wasting my time debating with someone who automatically doesn't respect me because of my position on the debate?

Click to expand...

I was just back lashing at Chippy's post, he got my goat and I reacted immaturely. I try to hear the other side of the story as best I can without being biased.

Except you came in with the "bastard baby murderers" rhetoric before I even posted.

Jan 23, 2009#65

makare

Sigh guys come on. Rhetoric is supposed to be skillful use of language. You are killing the word.. you are making Cicero cry!

Jan 23, 2009#66

A

Amy old

very few people use grandiloquence anymore makare

Jan 23, 2009#67

HoboNinja said:
I could never agree with you on this issue I guess.

And I don't have a problem with that, honestly, but it's nice when these topics can be discussed calmly, which I know this forum is capable of.

Jan 23, 2009#68

David

I've got many opinions on the subject through various branches of "what-if" scenarios, so it's hard for me to express a solid one-way stance. Generally what I've decided::

I disapprove of abortion strongly, except in cases of rape or endangerment to the mother. I don't, however, believe it should be flat-out illegal anywhere. Whether anyone likes it or not, I'm not foolish enough to believe whether it's illegal or not will have any effect on the fact that it is going to happen. Not unless there's a major shift in our entire system of society will that change. It will, however, have an effect on how the abortions are carried out. It can either be done in a sterile surgical room, or it can be done in a bathtub with a rusty coat hanger. The later pretty much guarantees all sorts of nasty health problems for the mother.

Our society should instead focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies to begin with. I've noticed that the US particularly has a problem with this; we demonize pre-marital sex and make teens feel too embarrassed to walk into a store and buy some condoms. I've seen many times they're behind a counter where you actually have to ask for them. Many school districts don't even teach one thing about safe sex or birth-control devices (mine didn't), and if anything is mentioned at all, it's abstinence-only education. Sorry, but that simply doesn't work for most people. Raging hormones and all that.

Jan 23, 2009#69

F

Futureking

Espy said:
Wow. Sure stumped me! Now I don't know if i hate abortion or luv it!?!
But really, thats a silly (and primarily an off topic) question. I have no issue with anyone thinking abortion is the bees knees. Great. Rock on. I assume they can also, like a mature adult view things from other people's perspectives and allow for civil disagreement on the issue.
But that's just asking a hypothetical question that avoids the actual issue in order to say, "people who disagree with me are stoopid!" Which doesn't really help anyone understand the others viewpoint.

I disagree with your statement, whatever it meant. You are stoopid.

zero said:
makare1 said:

Our system today is not the "common law" we have redone alot of the old laws in favor of the model penal code.

Click to expand...

Oh snap! My prejudice, sorry... Feel free to ask about monkeys roaming our streets any time...

You mean the kids with soccer balls attached to their feet in hope that a scout notices their talent and hires them?

thhp:

Jan 23, 2009#70

Shegokigo

Pro-abortion. Yet not for the reasons that will obviously be assumed.

I'm glad to see Obama's first few days, the first few 100 are really going to spark major changes as promised *crosses fingers*.

Jan 23, 2009#71

Shegokigo said:
Pro-abortion.

Which is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-choice," something I feel I have to point out since anti-choice people don't seem to get that.

Jan 23, 2009#72

Shegokigo

ZenMonkey said:
Shegokigo said:

Pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Which is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-choice," something I feel I have to point out since anti-choice people don't seem to get that.

Very well. I'm pro-choice.

Jan 23, 2009#73

strawman

ZenMonkey said:
Shegokigo said:

Pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Which is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-choice," something I feel I have to point out since anti-choice people don't seem to get that.

Dibs on being able to broadly paint "pro-choice" people with generalizations.

"Anti-choice is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-life," something I feel I have to point out since pro-abortion/pro-choice people don't seem to get that."

And so forth. :roll:

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#74

makare

stienman said:
ZenMonkey said:

Shegokigo said:

Pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Which is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-choice," something I feel I have to point out since anti-choice people don't seem to get that.

Click to expand...

Dibs on being able to broadly paint "pro-choice" people with generalizations.

"Anti-choice is not necessarily the same thing as "pro-life," something I feel I have to point out since pro-abortion/pro-choice people don't seem to get that."

And so forth. :roll:

-Adam

how is anti-choice not the same as pro-life? there are people who don't think women should have a choice just to be contrary?

Excellent attempt at being obnoxious though. nice one.

Jan 23, 2009#75

makare1 said:
how is anti-choice not the same as pro-life? there are people who don't think women should have a choice just to be contrary?

Excellent attempt at being obnoxious though. nice one.

Yeah, I'm sorry, you fail at that argument and even my anti-choice friend with whom I've had a long and interesting discussion about this concedes that point. Anti-choice means "Women should not have the choice to do this because it's wrong." That's anti-abortion, my friend, or as you call yourselves, "pro-life."

Jan 23, 2009#76

A

Amy old

Jan 23, 2009#77

strawman

makare1 said:
stuff

I was making a point about Zen's broad paintbrush generalizations. I'm not interested in actually engaging in a discussion on abortion - it's pointless. Neither of us are going to change our views, and it's unlikely that we'll learn anything new from one another on the subject.

Besides, you are an excellent devil's advocate, and you could, if you so chose, adequately defend those statements against your own attacks if you were really interested in considering why a person might think that.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#78

makare

stienman said:
makare1 said:

stuff

Click to expand...

I was making a point about Zen's broad paintbrush generalizations. I'm not interested in actually engaging in a discussion on abortion - it's pointless. Neither of us are going to change our views, and it's unlikely that we'll learn anything new from one another on the subject.

Besides, you are an excellent devil's advocate, and you could, if you so chose, adequately defend those statements against your own attacks if you were really interested in considering why a person might think that.

-Adam

Whether you are willing to discuss abortion or not you should at least understand the terms related to the issue and how they relate to each other.

Jan 23, 2009#79

General Fuzzy McBitty

I don't have a uterus, so I don't feel I can really say much here.... but I'm pro choice. Mostly because I know too many 17 year olds with kids, and I can't say what I'd do in that situation.

Jan 23, 2009#80

strawman

makare1 said:
stienman said:

makare1 said:

stuff

Click to expand...

I was making a point about Zen's broad paintbrush generalizations. I'm not interested in actually engaging in a discussion on abortion - it's pointless. Neither of us are going to change our views, and it's unlikely that we'll learn anything new from one another on the subject.

Besides, you are an excellent devil's advocate, and you could, if you so chose, adequately defend those statements against your own attacks if you were really interested in considering why a person might think that.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Whether you are willing to discuss abortion or not you should at least understand the terms related to the issue and how they relate to each other.

Ah, but I do. It sounds like you don't, nor are you willing to put forth the mental effort to figure it out.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#81

F

Futureking

General Fuzzy McBitty said:
I don't have a uterus, so I don't feel I can really say much here.... but I'm pro choice. Mostly because I know too many 17 year olds with kids, and I can't say what I'd do in that situation.

The uterus comment reminded me of this.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16qScwsNiC4:3axqzkgz][/youtube:3axqzkgz]

Jan 23, 2009#82

makare

stienman said:
Whether you are willing to discuss abortion or not you should at least understand the terms related to the issue and how they relate to each other.
Ah, but I do. It sounds like you don't, nor are you willing to put forth the mental effort to figure it out.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Well obviously you don't because you think that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion when it isn't and you don't think that pro-life is the same as anti-choice when it is. So failure of understanding is yours. Unless you were just saying that to try and bother Zen in which case your problem is bigger than lack of understanding.

Jan 23, 2009#83

strawman

makare1 said:
stienman said:

makare1 said:

Whether you are willing to discuss abortion or not you should at least understand the terms related to the issue and how they relate to each other.

Click to expand...

Ah, but I do. It sounds like you don't, nor are you willing to put forth the mental effort to figure it out.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Well obviously you don't because you think that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion when it isn't and you don't think that pro-life is the same as anti-choice when it is. So failure of understanding is yours. Unless you were just saying that to try and bother Zen in which case your problem is bigger than lack of understanding.

You need to re-read the whole conversation in context.

I didn't say that pro-choice and pro-abortion were the same. I believe they are different, just as zenmonkey and you do.

I said that broad generalizations such as the one Zen made (ie, referring to the idea that no anti-choice person can tell the difference) were inappropriate, and if she can do that I would go ahead and engage in broad generalizations as well - painting all pro-abortion/pro-choice folk with the same brush despite there being a difference and there being many to whom the generalization doesn't apply.

Pro-life and anti choice, however CAN be interpreted differently, a point which you disagree with.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#84

makare

stienman said:
makare1 said:

stienman said:

makare1 said:

Whether you are willing to discuss abortion or not you should at least understand the terms related to the issue and how they relate to each other.

Click to expand...

Ah, but I do. It sounds like you don't, nor are you willing to put forth the mental effort to figure it out.

Good luck with that.

-Adam

Click to expand...

Well obviously you don't because you think that pro-choice is the same as pro-abortion when it isn't and you don't think that pro-life is the same as anti-choice when it is. So failure of understanding is yours. Unless you were just saying that to try and bother Zen in which case your problem is bigger than lack of understanding.

Click to expand...

You need to re-read the whole conversation in context.

I didn't say that pro-choice and pro-abortion were the same. I believe they are different, just as zenmonkey and you do.

I said that broad generalizations such as the one Zen made (ie, referring to the idea that no anti-choice person can tell the difference) were inappropriate, and if she can do that I would go ahead and engage in broad generalizations as well - painting all pro-abortion/pro-choice folk with the same brush despite there being a difference and there being many to whom the generalization doesn't apply.

Pro-life and anti choice, however CAN be interpreted differently, a point which you disagree with.

-Adam

Well explain it then. I cannot think of a way that a person can be anti-choice while not being pro-life.

Jan 23, 2009#85

strawman

makare1 said:
Well explain it then.

Nah.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#86

makare

stienman said:
makare1 said:

Well explain it then.

Click to expand...

Nah.

-Adam

OOOOK then, I will just go on believing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, more evidence to support that anyway.

Jan 23, 2009#87

strawman

makare1 said:
stienman said:

makare1 said:

Well explain it then.

Click to expand...

Nah.

-Adam

Click to expand...

OOOOK then, I will just go on believing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, more evidence to support that anyway.

Ignorance is bliss, love.

-Adam

Jan 23, 2009#88

makare

stienman said:
makare1 said:

stienman said:

makare1 said:

Well explain it then.

Click to expand...

Nah.

-Adam

Click to expand...

OOOOK then, I will just go on believing that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, more evidence to support that anyway.

Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss, love.

-Adam

Well, that explains your happy go lucky attitude towards life in general and annoying people on the forum.

Jan 24, 2009#89

F

Futureking

stienman said:
makare1 said:

Well explain it then.

Click to expand...

Nah.

-Adam

Sigh. And here I thought that Adam would man up for once.

Well, here's my interpretation. Anti-abortion is merely a subset of the pro-life philosophy.

Pro-life does not just apply to abortion, but to capital punishment and a set of moral situations. Death brings no one back, and pro-life does not seek to extend the killcount.

A death penalty is too good for murderers, really. They should be cracking rocks in high security prisons for the rest of their lives, or construction work, or just something useful at all. Instead, they get a nice, quick and painful death. Furthermore, there are plenty of people in prison who are listed on the death row and die of old age in prison due to the red tape involved in executions.

Jan 24, 2009#90

Troll

This thread turned into a mini-flamefest. And I posted in it. Therefore I take credit. YOU HAVE ALL BE TROLLED BY ME HAW HAW. :Leyla:

Carry on.

Jan 24, 2009#91

Steven Soderburgin

Futureking said:
Sigh. And here I thought that Adam would man up for once.

Well, here's my interpretation. Anti-abortion is merely a subset of the pro-life philosophy.

Pro-life does not just apply to abortion, but to capital punishment and a set of moral situations. Death brings no one back, and pro-life does not seek to extend the killcount.

A death penalty is too good for murderers, really. They should be cracking rocks in high security prisons for the rest of their lives, or construction work, or just something useful at all. Instead, they get a nice, quick and painful death. Furthermore, there are plenty of people in prison who are listed on the death row and die of old age in prison due to the red tape involved in executions.

So what would I be? I'm 100% anti-capital punishment and absolutely pro-choice. I think the gag rule is horrible and results in many women getting substandard care or not being able to get care at all, and so I completely support Obama's order to reverse it. Am I pro-life or pro-choice?

Basically my point with this post is to point out how stupid this semantics argument is because it's only about ridiculous labels and doesn't actually address the issue. In general, pro-life and pro-abortion are misnomers. Anti-choice and pro-choice are much more accurate, though obviously far too broad and ambiguous to really describe someone's complete view. But if someone says, "I am pro-choice and you are anti-choice," it's pretty easy to figure out what they mean.

So let's stop arguing about labels and start discussing the actual issue.

Jan 24, 2009#92

Shegokigo

Kissinger said:
So let's stop arguing about labels and start discussing the actual issue.

But Tommy Hilfiger > Ralph Lauren for reelz!

Jan 24, 2009#93

Allen, who is Quiet

Shegokigo said:
Kissinger said:

So let's stop arguing about labels and start discussing the actual issue.

Click to expand...

But Tommy Hilfiger > Ralph Lauren for reelz!

But those are the kinds of jeans a clown would wear.

Jan 24, 2009#94

zero

makare1 said:
I highly doubt that the people who want to criminalize abortion, because they think it is murder, would be happy with a statue outlining abortion as a crime punishable with a lesser sentence.

Well, sure, but so what? It is not because some anti-abortion groups take unreasonable positions that the criminalization of the abortion is itself unreasonable.

As said GasBandit, it is not absurd for the law consider differences between born and unborn children, just like it considers the differences between children and adults. Obviously, his reasoning pro-abortion falls apart quickly when he fails to provide the link of different => less life protection (actually, if one were to follow his comparison to the letter, it is difficult not to notice that children have MORE protection from the law than adults... whatever that would imply for the unborn is of course subject to extrapolations...).

As such, to cause abortion may be very well considered something different from homicide, and still remain a crime. In fact, as I said, in Brazil, "to allow someone to cause abortion on yourself" carries a MUCH lighter penalty than homicide, 1 to 3 years of "detention". Now, "detention" on the Brazilian penal code is a "soft" penalty, (women who have abortion are NOT sent to jail in Brazil, nor they are stoned to death), usually followed in a "open regime", which in practice means the sentence is more moral than anything.

So, again, let's not confuse the things... Abortion is not murder, sure, we agree on that... but that doesn't means it should not be criminalized.

Jan 24, 2009#95

Kissinger said:
So let's stop arguing about labels and start discussing the actual issue.

God, no, let's not.

Jan 24, 2009#96

ElJuski

Stien, your "ignorance is bliss" bit really disappointed me. I was hoping somebody out there would be able to change my mind, but apparently all the opposition can do is say "lalalalalala." Come on, man.

As it stands, I think Obama did a great thing with all of this. And, if it hasn't been pounded in people's brains enough, a woman having the right to have an abortion does not mean that I totally want all babies to get stabbed with coathangers, and that you should be able to get abortions at Wal-Mart. Just because restrictions are lifted it doesn't mean that people are going to have an abortion free for all. If you have morals, you will continue to have morals. Implications will continue to have implications.

But women will have that much more power and ability over their body, especially in all those nasty little cases of rape, etc etc.

Jan 24, 2009#97

Iaculus

ElJuski said:
Stien, your "ignorance is bliss" bit really disappointed me. I was hoping somebody out there would be able to change my mind, but apparently all the opposition can do is say "lalalalalala." Come on, man.

To be fair, he was up against makare. That was probably the best option available.

Jan 24, 2009#98

F

Futureking

Iaculus said:
ElJuski said:

Stien, your "ignorance is bliss" bit really disappointed me. I was hoping somebody out there would be able to change my mind, but apparently all the opposition can do is say "lalalalalala." Come on, man.

Click to expand...

To be fair, he was up against makare. That was probably the best option available.

Quoted For Truth.

Jan 24, 2009#99

SeraRelm

Futureking said:
Iaculus said:

ElJuski said:

Stien, your "ignorance is bliss" bit really disappointed me. I was hoping somebody out there would be able to change my mind, but apparently all the opposition can do is say "lalalalalala." Come on, man.

Click to expand...

To be fair, he was up against makare. That was probably the best option available.

Click to expand...

Quoted For Truth.

Quoted For

Jan 24, 2009#100

A

Amy old

wtf, Sera?

wtf.

Jan 24, 2009#101

Scarlet Varlet

From SNL, Season 3, Episode 18

Dan Aykroyd: Tonight on "Point/Counterpoint", Jane and I will argue Federal Aid for Abortions. Jane will take the Point for Federal Aid, and I will take the Counterpoint against. Jane?

Jane Curtin: Safe abortions have always been available to the rich, Dan. You simply want to deny them to the poor, and if you succeed, poor woman will be forced to get them anyway. They'll be forced into the alleys with hangers, plungers and vacuum cleaners, risking death or mutilation. But you'd like that, wouldn't you, Dan, you sadistic, elitist, sexist, racist, anti-humanist pig!

Dan Aykroyd: Jane, you ignorant, misguided slut! Once again, you missed the point entirely. [ enraged ] Why should I pay hard-earned dollars so welfare tarts can have sex anytime they want, without regards to consequences? Haven't these bimbos heard of abstinence? I, myself, haven't had sex for two years - and I'm rich! Why should I foot the bill for killing unborn infants, anyway? I'll pay for something practical like sterilization - but abortions? Never! With one exception - if I had been around when your mother was having you, not only would I have paid for the abortion, but I would have performed it myself!

Jane Curtin: Thank you, Dan.

Wish I could find this on YouTube, but search brings up other shit not even close to what I look for.

Jan 24, 2009#102

Scarlet Varlet said:
From SNL, Season 3, Episode 18

It's nice to remember they were edgy and hilarious once.

Jan 24, 2009#103

Espy

ZenMonkey said:
Scarlet Varlet said:

From SNL, Season 3, Episode 18

Click to expand...

It's nice to remember they were edgy and hilarious once.

Ditto.

Jan 24, 2009#104

HoboNinja

I am fine with being labeling anti-choice if you like but only as long as you understand the choice I am against. I don't think people should have the right to choose to kill a child just like I don't think you should have the right to choose to shoot the gas station attendant and take his money.

Jan 24, 2009#105

Troll

HoboNinja said:
I don't think people should have the right to choose to kill a child just like I don't think you should have the right to choose to shoot the gas station attendant and take his money.

Except that is a HORRIBLE analogy. I'm sure you don't see it that way, but it is. You can't really compare the two like that.

You see, this is where the disconnect in the debate lies. There's this gap that neither side crosses.

Jan 24, 2009#106

HoboNinja

Well how bout we take out the taking the cash after and just say you shot the attendant dead right there and then left.

To me both are murder.

Jan 24, 2009#107

A Troll said:
You see, this is where the disconnect in the debate lies. There's this gap that neither side crosses.

As usual, the Troll makes the most sense. And this is why actually debating the issue is useless and it will all end in :waah:, I tell you!

Jan 24, 2009#108

Allen, who is Quiet

Hoboninja said:
Well how bout we take out the taking the cash after and just say you shot the attendant dead right there and then left.

To me both are murder.

Right, but there's still a disconnect.

Where you find an analogy, others think you're just dramatizing. You won't get people to see eye-to-eye with you regarding fetus removal no matter how hard you try.

Jan 24, 2009#109

zero

But he has a point. To place the debate as something between "pro-choice" and "anti-choice" fields is as intellectually dishonest as the "pro-life" versus "anti-life" labeling. (Perhaps even more, as many on the "pro-choice" field try to claim the moral high ground, claiming that "pro-life" is deliberately misleading, while being guilty of the same faults).

Just say it guys, I'm pro/against criminalization of forceful abortion. A few more worlds, but that's the price of honesty, right?

Jan 24, 2009#110

Espy

The point is the argument is... pointless if it's about pure right/wrong since one side views it as murder and loss of life and one doesn't. That's a gap to huge, to fundamental to allow for much moderation on. So arguing it, unless you can change someone mind on this issue is... pointless. We won't get anywhere but angry.

Jan 24, 2009#111

ElJuski

I could never get angry with you espy :zoid:

Jan 24, 2009#112

Espy

ElJuski said:
I could never get angry with you espy

Well, I'm adorable so... duh.

Jan 24, 2009#113

zero

zero said:
Just say it guys, I'm pro/against criminalization of forceful abortion. A few more worlds, but that's the price of honesty, right?

Actually, I see how the "forceful" can be seeing as carrying a negative connotation (heh, as if the "abortion" wasn't enough). Let's say... criminalization of induced abortion.

Jan 24, 2009#114

zero said:
(Perhaps even more, as many on the "pro-choice" field try to claim the moral high ground, claiming that "pro-life" is deliberately misleading, while being guilty of the same faults).

That is beyond a doubt true. In my case it's a more or less semantic issue that has caused one "pro-lifer" -- insert your preferred term inside the quotes -- to get rather personal with me, so I would prefer not to get more specific. I did just want to agree with zero's point though.

EDIT: redacted, came out sounding way more aggressive than I feel or am trying to convey

Jan 24, 2009#115

Troll

Everyone said:
*Logical, civil discussion*

Boredboredboredbored.

I'm disappointed in you people. Sure, it's gotten a little warm at some points, but for the most part you've all been way to reasonable. I demand more vitriol! More anger! Dammit, the people who disagree with you are subhuman mutants bent on destroying your way of life!

I'm not going to happy until somehere here begins to foam at the mouth over this subject. You guys make my job waaaaaaay too hard around here. Dicks.

Jan 24, 2009#116

Allen, who is Quiet

A Troll said:
I'm disappointed in you people.

:sadness:

I'm sorry.

If it would make you feel better, you can go fuck yourself.

Jan 24, 2009#117

Espy

It sucks when people agree to disagree in a civil manner.

Jan 24, 2009#118

Troll

Allen said:
[quote="A Troll":3b59w3xh]I'm disappointed in you people.

If it would make you feel better, you can go fuck yourself.[/quote:3b59w3xh]

Aww, thank you. See folks, Allen knows how to do it. You should all follow his example.

Jan 24, 2009#119

ElJuski

@ Hobo: Is war murder too? Capital punishment? Hunting? Second-hand smoke?

gotta pump out more blood from this thread.

Jan 24, 2009#120

Espy

I don't know if war is murder but I hear people aren't sure what it's good for.

Jan 24, 2009#121

Espy said:
I don't know if war is murder but I hear people aren't sure what it's good for.

Good gracious, everyone.

Jan 24, 2009#122

Iaculus

SAY IT AGAIN!

Jan 24, 2009#123

Bubble181

Espy said:
The point is the argument is... pointless if it's about pure right/wrong

That's true for any and all moral debates. Abortion, divorce, embryonic stem cells, euthanasia, welfare, you name it. Heck, it can be extrapolated to almost any political discussion, as well.
Obviously both extreme positions are flawed. Hey, I'd even say that, in this particular discussion, the extreme I stand farthest from - "anti-choice" or whatever - is the lesser evil of the two extremes. Rather "no abortion never at all even if it causes the death of the mother and the infant after forceful rape of a mentally retarded 10-year-old" than "abortion as a handy and convenient method of birth control that's cheaper and easier than the pill".
Doesn't mean I'm not all in favour of choice, or that we can't have a civil, interesting, discussion about it.
Or, you know, help the troll to have some fun.

Jan 24, 2009#124

zero

A Troll said:
Boredboredboredbored.

I'm disappointed in you people. Sure, it's gotten a little warm at some points, but for the most part you've all been way to reasonable.

No Troll...

YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

It is YOUR job to keep this conversation as less civil as possible, and let's face it... that's a fucking ABORTION thread! If you can't get THAT to derail, then what kind of troll are you?

Jan 24, 2009#125

Troll

zero said:
A Troll said:

Boredboredboredbored.

I'm disappointed in you people. Sure, it's gotten a little warm at some points, but for the most part you've all been way to reasonable.

Click to expand...

No Troll...

YOU DISAPPOINT ME.

It is YOUR job to keep this conversation as less civil as possible, and let's face it... that's a fucking ABORTION thread! If you can't get THAT to derail, then what kind of troll are you?

:waah:

Jan 24, 2009#126

Bubble181

Awww, now look what you did! You made the poor li'l guy cry! You inhumane bastard! I bet you like aborting babies until the 43d week, too, huh? Evil, cold-blooded bastard, that's what you are. May God Almighty smite you down for your wicked beliefs!

Jan 24, 2009#127

zero

agh...

Now, there, there big boy, why the long (and hairy) face?

You ARE a good troll, it just that you got a little overconfident here... I know, I know, abortion thread, easy target, but come on! You tried to troll BOTH fields at once! And didn't EVEN bothered to reply to a post to start with... I've seen you trolling, I know you can do much better.

You got better when replying to HoboNinja... picked a side, picked an hyperbolic post, added a bit of insult (perhaps a little mild... "HORRIBLE analogy"...), but I guess the moment had already passed by then.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll do much better on next threads... I'll try to make a "OMG, OBAMA IS A MUSLIM" post one of this days...

Jan 25, 2009#128

Calleja

Poor Troll, always failing..

You're Ravenpoe, aren't you? CONFESS!!

Jan 25, 2009#129

Matt²

abortion is murder, plain and simple. It prevents a human life from being born.

MURDER.

Jan 25, 2009#130

Troll

The Neon Grue said:
abortion is murder, plain and simple. It prevents a human life from being born.

MURDER.

Going by your logic, wouldn't condoms and birth control pills also be murder?

EDIT: Speeling. Because I'm a gud speelur.

Jan 25, 2009#131

Troll

Calleja said:
Poor Troll, always failing..

You're Ravenpoe, aren't you? CONFESS!!

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to finally confess. I can't hold it in any longer.

I'm really Zen Monkey. There, I said it.

Jan 25, 2009#132

Iaculus

A Troll said:
[quote="The Neon Grue":fho1plpa]abortion is murder, plain and simple. It prevents a human life from being born.

MURDER.

Going by your logic, woudn't condoms and bill control pills also be murder?[/quote:fho1plpa]

:shock:

So it's true - every tax return you fill, another Inland revenue guy gets his suit.

Jan 25, 2009#133

Troll

Iaculus said:
A Troll said:

[quote="The Neon Grue":1yyaz7sw]abortion is murder, plain and simple. It prevents a human life from being born.

MURDER.

Click to expand...

Going by your logic, woudn't condoms and bill control pills also be murder?

:shock:

So it's true - every tax return you fill, another Inland revenue guy gets his suit.[/quote:1yyaz7sw]

IT'S LATE. I'M TIRED.

And I just fixed it.

Jan 25, 2009#134

Calleja

Every time I masturbate I kill millions of potential babies.

I'm a mass murderer.

Jan 25, 2009#135

HoboNinja

Calleja said:
Every time I masturbate I kill millions of potential babies.

I'm a mass murderer.

http://www.tshirthell.com/funny-shirts/ ... ast-night/

Jan 25, 2009#136

F

Futureking

Calleja said:
Every time I masturbate I kill millions of potential babies.

I'm a mass murderer.

Every sperm is sacred. You heathen.

I shall now exercise my pope powers to send a group of Spaniards to inquisite you. Bet you didn't expect that.

Jan 25, 2009#137

ElJuski

I once again pose my question to those that either did not see it or chose to ignore it when continuing debate, since we've come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and that murder should never be committed.

Jan 25, 2009#138

Chibibar

I am pro-choice (in case people haven't figure out) the two sisters I had before (since most of you won't know them) were forcefully taken advantage of, but even if their health wasn't at stake, would it be punishment to the mother as well?

Here is something that is weird (well if we remove the moral aspect)

If a woman was raped, abortion is ok.
If a woman's health was in danger (i.e. the mother can die from having a baby), abortion is ok
If a woman involved in incest, abortion is ok.

So..... abortion is "ok" with most people (well that is general term really) if the condition fits above. But isn't abortion itself (the act) is killing the fetus.

How is that different (the killing) if the woman just can't take care of the future child and have abortion?

Jan 25, 2009#139

SeraRelm

ElJuski said:
I once again pose my question to those that either did not see it or chose to ignore it when continuing debate, since we've come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and that murder should never be committed.

No you don't. You allude to your question in an attempt to inspire a search for said question, but you don't pose it.

I find your claim both false and instigative.

Jan 25, 2009#140

Calleja

SeraRelm said:
ElJuski said:

I once again pose my question to those that either did not see it or chose to ignore it when continuing debate, since we've come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and that murder should never be committed.

Click to expand...

No you don't. You allude to your question in an attempt to inspire a search for said question, but you don't pose it.

I find your claim both false and instigative.

I concur with this statement.

I'm too lazy to search for the relevant question.

Jan 25, 2009#141

SeraRelm

Calleja said:
SeraRelm said:

ElJuski said:

I once again pose my question to those that either did not see it or chose to ignore it when continuing debate, since we've come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and that murder should never be committed.

Click to expand...

No you don't. You allude to your question in an attempt to inspire a search for said question, but you don't pose it.

I find your claim both false and instigative.

Click to expand...

I concur with this statement.

I'm too lazy to search for the relevant question.

Indeed.

Jan 25, 2009#142

ElJuski

Foiled!

Okay, now I will pose it again!

Is war murder too? Capital punishment? Hunting? Second-hand smoke?

I want to know what the definition of murder is, to those who consider abortion murder. I also want to know how in certain cases, especially like the ones I listed above, murder would *not* apply.

I'm going to assume that murder WOULD apply, and that the justification of war, or capital punishment, being legal and morally sound is a necessary evil. In which case I would have to counter that abortion in cases of rape or endangerment to the life of the woman is also a necessary evil.

Otherwise the only other argument I can think of is, "Oh, the convict / terrorist already had a chance to be good!" In which case the appeal to moral superiority is already moot, since the moral rule is being based on relative terms to the person. If one is to make the claim that murder is wrong, then murder must be wrong, regardless of who is committing the crime and who it is being committed upon.

Jan 25, 2009#143

SeraRelm

Ah, well it's not directed at me, but I'll field the question anyway!

ElJuski said:
Is war murder too?

Yes, it's killing people.

ElJuski said:
Capital punishment?

Yes, it's killing people.

ElJuski said:
Hunting?

No, it's not killing people.

ElJuski said:
Second-hand smoke?

No, though it can lead to health problems, people may choose to remove themselves from the situation.

Jan 25, 2009#144

Calleja

What if they're hunting sentient wabbits?

Jan 25, 2009#145

ElJuski

Yes but is hunting -murder-? Is purposely causing the death of an animal "murder"? I want to talk semantics because it's important to lay out what people consider murder, and then to find out how their definition of murder matches up with abortion and other cases such as capital punishment, war, etc etc.

And, thanks for answering, Sera

I have a feeling nobody on the anti-abortion side of the debate is going to respond, which is unfortunate.

Jan 25, 2009#146

F

Futureking

ElJuski said:
Yes but is hunting -murder-? Is purposely causing the death of an animal "murder"? I want to talk semantics because it's important to lay out what people consider murder, and then to find out how their definition of murder matches up with abortion and other cases such as capital punishment, war, etc etc.

And, thanks for answering, Sera I have a feeling nobody on the anti-abortion side of the debate is going to respond, which is unfortunate.

Well. There's a chance flames will arise. I'll assume this isn't a trap. I trust you on this, juski.

Let's see. Murder.

Mw defines is as

1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

To kill is to take a life. That's obvious. By the definition, its murder if its illegal.

I quote Arthur Conan Doyle, in the story "Black Peter". In this case, the killing was done in self defense.

You say I murdered Peter Carey. I say I KILLED Peter Carey.

That said. I suppose abortion is no longer murder if its legal. But its still the taking of a life. So, I'm not all that comfortable about it.

And yeah, at least imo, life begins at the fetal level. So, I don't have problems with morning after pills.

Jan 25, 2009#147

Kitty Sinatra

Futureking said:
That said. I suppose abortion is no longer murder if its legal.

It was likely never murder. I don't believe a fetus has ever held the legal status of "person"

But it's still the taking of a life. So, I'm not all that comfortable about it.

Jan 25, 2009#148

ElJuski

I think nobody really should be comfortable about it. But I'm trying to figure out where anti-abortion people stand on the murder issue, and how it relates to their beliefs of war and capital punishment.

Basically, what I'm trying to call out is certain hypocrasies, and point out the idea of moral relativism: not everything is wholly right or wrong. There are varying degrees. Like, say, between killing a cat and killing a bear and killing a human being. I think it's impossible to justify an absolute "Killing is Wrong" because there are plenty of times where killing may be right, or if not right, it may be necessary.

As for abortion, I would hope that people would choose to not take a life and find more viable routes. But I think the citizenry should have that choice in case of certain situations--specifically rape or when the woman's life is in danger. If we can justify killing in the name of war to protect the citizenry, and capital punishment to protect the citizenry, it is by far NOT a stretch of the imagination to protect the female citizen's right to life, too.

And, as is, I'm still quite interested in hearing what the opposing side has to say. I mean this in the most friendly and curious way, too. I just want to know how the other side justifies certain things.

Jan 25, 2009#149

HowDroll

That is all.

Jan 25, 2009#150

Espy

HowDroll said:
That is all.

So... you are pro-masturbation?

Thanks... for sharing?

Jan 25, 2009#151

Allen, who is Quiet

Espy said:
HowDroll said:

That is all.

Click to expand...

So... you are pro-masturbation?

Thanks... for sharing?

It is a way to avoid the issue.

Jan 25, 2009#152

Espy said:
HowDroll said:

That is all.

Click to expand...

So... you are pro-masturbation?

Thanks... for sharing?

If masturbation becomes illegal, only criminals will jack off.

Jan 25, 2009#153

HowDroll

Espy said:
HowDroll said:

That is all.

Click to expand...

So... you are pro-masturbation?

Thanks... for sharing?

Jan 25, 2009#154

JONJONAUG

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Jan 25, 2009#155

Bubble181

Jan 25, 2009#156

Troll

JONJONAUG said:
Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Jan 25, 2009#157

JONJONAUG

A Troll said:
JONJONAUG said:

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Click to expand...

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Yes, because the inalienable right to life should not be ignored in favor of personal emotions.

Jan 25, 2009#158

Troll

JONJONAUG said:
A Troll said:

JONJONAUG said:

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Click to expand...

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the inalienable right to life should not be ignored in favor of personal emotions.

I find that to be pretty cold blooded.

Jan 25, 2009#159

Bubble181

A Troll said:
JONJONAUG said:

[quote="A Troll":uh4e7nd4]

JONJONAUG said:

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Click to expand...

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the inalienable right to life should not be ignored in favor of personal emotions.

I find that to be pretty cold blooded.[/quote:uh4e7nd4]

Your idea that people should simply be allowed to kill off their babies because they don't like the father anymore is cold-blooded.
this is fun.

Jan 25, 2009#160

JONJONAUG

A Troll said:
JONJONAUG said:

[quote="A Troll":2tqbzw02]

JONJONAUG said:

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Click to expand...

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the inalienable right to life should not be ignored in favor of personal emotions.

I find that to be pretty cold blooded.[/quote:2tqbzw02]

I don't. The life of someone born through a stable marriage is not worth more than the life of someone born through rape or incest.

Jan 25, 2009#161

Espy

A Troll said:
...cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Well, here's a question for you in reply, if those babies are actually 100% fully human and deserve the same rights as all humans from the moment of conception wouldn't you say of course? And again, if you thought they were not deserving of human rights on the ground that they are not able to be defined as a "human being" yet then of course the answer is the opposite.

See why this is such a difficult thing and not matter how we peg someone down they have a solid base of reasoning. I can't blame you if you don't think it's human for not caring if abortion happens or not to it, after all, why should you? Likewise I don't see how someone who believes life begins at conception can be hated for wanting to protect that life (depending on their methods of protection of course).
We are dealing with two views that are so opposite there is almost ZERO middle ground.

Jan 25, 2009#162

Troll

Espy said:
A Troll said:

...cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Click to expand...

Well, here's a question for you in reply, if those babies are actually 100% fully human and deserve the same rights as all humans from the moment of conception wouldn't you say of course? And again, if you thought they were not deserving of human rights on the ground that they are not able to be defined as a "human being" yet then of course the answer is the opposite.

See why this is such a difficult thing and not matter how we peg someone down they have a solid base of reasoning. I can't blame you if you don't think it's human for not caring if abortion happens or not to it, after all, why should you? Likewise I don't see how someone who believes life begins at conception can be hated for wanting to protect that life (depending on their methods of protection of course).
We are dealing with two views that are so opposite there is almost ZERO middle ground.

Worst.trolling.wingman.EVER.

Jan 25, 2009#163

Espy

:finger:

Jan 25, 2009#164

AshburnerX

JONJONAUG said:
A Troll said:

JONJONAUG said:

Abortion is morally wrong, and should never be an acceptable course of action barring health issues with the expectant mother. Killing something that will become a human life (barring extraordinary circumstances that lead to a miscarriage) is the same as killing an infant and should be punished in the same way (although not necessarily as murder in the first degree, it should be treated as voluntary manslaughter, since emotional state leading to an abortion would be impossible to gauge in a court of law on a regular basis).

Alternatives to abortion should be fully explored and offered (adoption, foster care, etc), but abortion should not be legally sanctioned.

[/2cents]

Click to expand...

I see you didn't include an exclusion for cases of rape or incest. Do you think those mothers should be forced to give birth in those situations?

Click to expand...

Yes, because the inalienable right to life should not be ignored in favor of personal emotions.

Inalienable right to life? What about Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Someone's liberty is being stolen when you tell that rape victim she must carry the child of the man raped her, not to mention completely overlooking the economic and health consequences. Your robbing her of the right to happiness as she watches her stomach swell with the reminder of a tragic event that will scar her forever. Your effectively denying the rights of someone else (who may not have even had any say in the matter of conceiving the child) in order to grant them to someone who may not even survive and who the law says has none to begin with.

Jan 25, 2009#165

JCM

ElJuski said:
I once again pose my question to those that either did not see it or chose to ignore it when continuing debate, since we've come to the conclusion that murder is wrong and that murder should never be committed.

Ah yes, murder used in an abortion debate. I'll let Carlin handle that.

Carlin said:
Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're fucked.

Conservatives don't give a shit about you until you reach 'military age'. Then they think you are just fine. Just what they've been looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. Pro-life... pro-life... These people aren't pro-life, they're killing doctors! What kind of pro-life is that? What, they'll do anything they can to save a fetus but if it grows up to be a doctor they just might have to kill it?They're not pro-life. You know what they are? They're anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don't like them. They don't like women.They believe a woman's primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Pro-life... You don't see many of these white anti-abortion women volunteering to have any black fetuses transplanted into their uteruses, do you? No, you don't see them adopting a whole lot of crack babies, do you? No, that might be something Christ would do. And, you won't see alot of these pro-life people dousing themselves in kerosene and lighting themselves on fire. You know, moraly committed religious people in South Vietnam knew how to stage a goddamn demonstration, didn't they?! They knew how to put on a fucking protest. Light yourself on FIRE!! C'mon, you moral crusaders, let's see a little smoke. To match that fire in your belly.

Here's another question I have: how come when it's us, it's an abortion, and when it's a chicken, it's an omelette? Are we so much better than chickens all of a sudden? When did this happen, that we passed chickens in goodness? Name six ways we're better than chickens... See, nobody can do it! You know why? 'Cuz chickens are decent people. You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No, you don't see a chicken strapping some guy to a chair and hooking up his nuts to a car battery, do you? When's the last chicken you heard about came home from work and beat the shit out of his hen, huh? Doesn't happen. 'Cuz chickens are decent people.

But let's get back to this abortion shit. Now, is a fetus a human being? This seems to be the central question. Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? If a fetus is a human being, how come when there's a miscarriage they don't have a funeral? If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' People say life begins at conception, I say life began about a billion years ago and it's a continuous process. Continuous, just keeps rolling along. Rolling, rolling, rolling along.

And say you know something? Listen, you can go back further than that. What about the carbon atoms? Hah? Human life could not exist without carbon. So is it just possible that maybe we shouldn't be burning all this coal? Just looking for a little consistency here in these anti-abortion arguments. See the really hardcore people will tell you life begins at fertilization. Fertilization, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. Which is usually a few moments after the man says 'Gee, honey, I was going to pull out but the phone rang and it startled me.' Fertilization.

But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency. Consistency. Hey, hey, if they really want to get serious, what about all the sperm that are wasted when the state executes a condemned man, one of these pro-life guys who's watching cums in his pants, huh? Here's a guy standing over there with his jockey shorts full of little Vinnies and Debbies, and nobody's saying a word to the guy. Not every ejaculation deserves a name.

Now, speaking of consistency, Catholics, which I was until I reached the age of reason, Catholics and other Christians are against abortions, and they're against homosexuals. Well who has less abortions than homosexuals?! Leave these fucking people alone, for Christ sakes! Here is an entire class of people guaranteed never to have an abortion! And the Catholics and Christians are just tossing them aside! You'd think they'd make natural allies. Go look for consistency in religion. And speaking of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion. I'm sure it'll be interesting. Enlightening, too. But, in the meantime what they ought to be doing is telling these priests who took a vow of chastity to keep their hands off the altar boys! Keep your hands to yourself, Father! You know? When Jesus said 'Suffer the little children come unto me', that's not what he was talking about!

So you know what I tell these anti-abortion people? I say 'Hey. Hey. If you think a fetus is more important that a woman, try getting a fetus to wash the shit stains out of your underwear. For no pay and no pension.' I tell them 'Think of an abortion as term limits. That's all it is. Bioligical term limits.

Basically what seems to be the debate here isn't any more whether women have the right to abort, but whether killing a fetus is murder. I say killing sperm is murder, and all of you who masturbate/get blowjobs should die.

Jan 25, 2009#166

zero

Come on JCM, that text was awful... I could not keep reading after the "chicken" part.

But you are right on spot, this thread should be about criminalization of induced abortion, not whether abortion is murder or not.

Heck, risking to sound like a broken record, to steal a car isn't murder either... should it be allowed?

Jan 25, 2009#167

Troll

zero said:
Come on JCM, that text was awful... I could not keep reading after the "chicken" part.

But you are right on spot, this thread should be about criminalization of induced abortion, not whether abortion is murder or not.

Heck, risking to sound like a broken record, to steal a car isn't murder either... should it be allowed?

If remove the argument as to whether or not abortion means killing another human, or whether or not abortion is murder, then why should it be illegal? If you're not basing it on the termination of another life, what are you basing it on?

Jan 25, 2009#168

JCM

zero said:
Come on JCM, that text was awful... I could not keep reading after the "chicken" part.

Did you just call George Carlin awful? :shock:

Jan 25, 2009#169

JONJONAUG

JCM said:
Basically what seems to be the debate here isn't any more whether women have the right to abort, but whether killing a fetus is murder. I say killing sperm is murder, and all of you who masturbate/get blowjobs should die.

Masturbation is not murder, there is no egg to fertilize.

Birth control is not murder nor is it immoral since there isn't anything definite that exists that you are killing (and I am not playing the Schroedinger's cat game with fetuses).

Abortion IS murder, since you are killing something that will definitely become a human being, barring extraordinary circumstances.

Inalienable right to life? What about Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? Someone's liberty is being stolen when you tell that rape victim she must carry the child of the man raped her, not to mention completely overlooking the economic and health consequences. Your robbing her of the right to happiness as she watches her stomach swell with the reminder of a tragic event that will scar her forever. Your effectively denying the rights of someone else (who may not have even had any say in the matter of conceiving the child) in order to grant them to someone who may not even survive and who the law says has none to begin with.

I consider the right to life more important than anything based in emotions (unless the person is willing to die as a result of serious health problems that are untreatable and don't have any hope for being treatable in the expected remaining lifespan of the person). I also consider the chances of a miscarriage (which I believe is what you mean by "may not even survive") to be negligible (you don't shoot yourself in the head because you think you might get run over by a car while walking to work).

Economic costs are avoided through adoption or foster care and a rapist should be made to pay for medical costs if the expectant mother chooses. Again, I believe abortion should be allowed if the health of the mother is at risk, but if you mean short-term health consequences (labor pains, mood swings, etc) then they are negligible.

As for the George Carlin text: It was funny, but anyone that lives their life by the moral code of a curmudgeon like Carlin is an idiot.

Jan 25, 2009#170

Espy

JONJONAUG said:
As for the George Carlin text: It was funny, but anyone that lives their life by the moral code of a curmudgeon like Carlin is an idiot.

Thats why I live by the "Chris Rock" moral code. Cuz I'm not an idiot.

Jan 25, 2009#171

Kitty Sinatra

JCM said:
zero said:

Come on JCM, that text was awful... I could not keep reading after the "chicken" part.

Click to expand...

Did you just call George Carlin awful? :shock:

Zero automagically wins that Troll poll.

. . . and I was leading :waah:

Jan 25, 2009#172

zero

JCM said:
zero said:

Come on JCM, that text was awful... I could not keep reading after the "chicken" part.

Click to expand...

Did you just call George Carlin awful? :shock:

Seriously... "Chicken"? Unless he's mocking the "pro-choice" field... but knowing George Carlin, I'd say this is unlikely. Carlin has its moments, but I don't think this text is one of them.

Gruebeard said:
Zero automagically wins that Troll poll.

. . . and I was leading :waah:

Come on guys... CHICKEN!

Jan 25, 2009#173

Kitty Sinatra

That was the best part!

Jan 25, 2009#174

JCM

Agreed, some people seems to have no sense of humor when trying to shove outrgae backed by weak logic on us.

Zero automagically wins that Troll poll.

. . . and I was leading

Amen on that.

The outrage these people have on a fetus dying makes an awesome contrast to the indifference in the Israeli attack thread over Palestinian kids dying.

JONJONAUG said:
JCM said:

Basically what seems to be the debate here isn't any more whether women have the right to abort, but whether killing a fetus is murder. I say killing sperm is murder, and all of you who masturbate/get blowjobs should die.

Click to expand...

Masturbation is not murder, there is no egg to fertilize.......As for the George Carlin text: It was funny, but anyone that lives their life by the moral code of a curmudgeon like Carlin is an idiot.

Yet Carlin seems to be smarter and throws your "no egg/fertilization" argument out the window.

Carlin said:
But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has.

Did you know many things, from sex to exercise, can kill a fertilized egg/young fetus? Heck, Ive had a girlfriend lose a 4-month pregnancy due to sex (she didnt know she was pregnant,neither did I)

More people to add to the "MURDERERS!!" list, people who have lots of sex with the same woman and people who work out.

Jan 25, 2009#175

JONJONAUG

JCM said:
Agreed, some people seems to have no sense of humor when trying to shove outrgae backed by weak logic on us.

Zero automagically wins that Troll poll.

. . . and I was leading

Click to expand...

Amen on that.

The outrage these people have on a fetus dying makes an awesome contrast to the indifference in the Israeli attack thread over Palestinian kids dying.

JONJONAUG said:

JCM said:

Basically what seems to be the debate here isn't any more whether women have the right to abort, but whether killing a fetus is murder. I say killing sperm is murder, and all of you who masturbate/get blowjobs should die.

Click to expand...

Masturbation is not murder, there is no egg to fertilize.......As for the George Carlin text: It was funny, but anyone that lives their life by the moral code of a curmudgeon like Carlin is an idiot.

Click to expand...

Yet Carlin seems to be smarter and throws your "no egg/fertilization" argument out the window.

Carlin said:

But even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has.

Click to expand...

Did you know many things, from sex to exercise, can kill a fertilized egg/young fetus? Heck, Ive had a girlfriend lose a 4-month pregnancy due to sex.

More people to add to the "MURDERERS!!" list, people who have lots of sex with the same woman and people who work out.

All cases of accidental miscarriage, which isn't the issue here. The issue is whether willful abortion is immoral, not whether the human body's internal workings are.

Jan 25, 2009#176

zero

JCM said:
Agreed, some people seems to have no sense of humor when trying to shove outrgae backed by weak logic on us.

Geez dude, I was agreeing with you...

JCM said:
The outrage these people have on a fetus dying makes an awesome contrast to the indifference in the Israeli attack thread over Palestinian kids dying.

'THE HELL??? Is there another Zero on this forum?

Jan 25, 2009#177

ElJuski

I don't think the point should be whether or not it is murder. I'm saying it is.

What I want to argue is the fact that while people take a moral high ground with abortion, the same cannot be said for war and capital punishment. If we make exceptions to murder on that end, I don't think it is a stretch to say exceptions can be made for abortion.

Jonjon brought up the inalienable right to life. I had a morality class that talked about this. What we have, at war here, are:

-The fetus' right to life
-The mother's right to abortion
-The mother's right to life (where the mother's life is in danger)

The essay we wrote brought up this case scenario. Imagine one day you wake up in your bed. There are doctors all around you and you realize you are attached, at the kidney, to the most skilled violinist on the planet.

You are the only one that can carry on this operation: to be attached to the kidney with this violinist for nine months until the operation is complete.

Now, it would be beyond commendable to go through with this operation and stay attached for the duration. But this was not something that you actively asked for. The morally right thing to do would be to sit there for nine months bearing violinist at the kidney. But you would not be morally wrong if you chose to say no.

In the grand scheme of things, the woman's right to life out-trumps the child's. The woman's right to abortion helps facilitate that need. Now, this does NOT mean, by any means, that abortion should be completely legal and encouraged. That's what I think is the disconnect for many people. Legalizing abortion will not, in turn, encourage abortion if there are means set in place that it would be used in special circumstances. Vigilance in a moral and a legal sense is needed to keep things moving smoothly.

Jan 25, 2009#178

Calleja

I agree with Carlin, JCM and Juski.

Everything they say can be considered coming from me too.

Except I won't be here, I'll be over there having fun.

Good day.

Jan 25, 2009#179

Kitty Sinatra

Calleja said:
I agree with . . . Juski.

I don't. I'm quite content to extend that to mean complete access to abortion for whatever reason the woman bearing the kid has, even if that's as a form of birth control.

Jan 25, 2009#180

JCM

Calleja said:
I agree with Carlin, JCM and Juski.

Everything they say can be considered coming from me too.

Except I won't be here, I'll be over there having fun.

Good day.

Funnily, I stand with Carin on most stuff.

Minus rape. That is never funny. Even if its Elmer Fud raping Porky Pig

Jan 25, 2009#181

Bubble181

Geez Hollow, you really want that top spot huh? :-P

That aside: statistically, Belgium has less abortions than the USA (per capita). We have legalised abortion. And, for the record, it costs a whopping €1. (it does take a few days including some psychiatric visits, but, you know, that's a good thing

). Legalised abortion cuts down on abortions, it doesn't increase the percentage.

Abortion isn't murder. It can be considered evil/wrong/illegal on a lot of other grounds, though. Manslaughter isn't murder either. Nor is driving into a tree. Nor is jumping in front of a train. Yet all involve the loss of life and are illegal.
Euthanisia we can argue about 'till the cows come home on whether or not it's murder. Abortion? Nope.

Jan 25, 2009#182

Kitty Sinatra

Bubble181 said:
Geez Hollow, you really want that top spot huh? :-P

What? No.

No no no. That was me contributing. It is 100% my sincere opinion on the topic. Honest. I swear.

Seriously.

Jan 25, 2009#183

Bubble181

Gruebeard said:
Bubble181 said:

Geez Hollow, you really want that top spot huh? :-P

Click to expand...

What? No.

No no no. That was me contributing. It is 100% my sincere opinion on the topic. Honest. I swear.

Seriously.

Seriously? For real? Like, really seriously swear to God it's true serious? Man, that's some serious shit right there. I didn't know you were being serious.

Jan 25, 2009#184

Kitty Sinatra

Fo shizzle, man. Tis the internet, after all

Jan 25, 2009#185

F

Futureking

ElJuski said:
The essay we wrote brought up this case scenario. Imagine one day you wake up in your bed. There are doctors all around you and you realize you are attached, at the kidney, to the most skilled violinist on the planet.

You are the only one that can carry on this operation: to be attached to the kidney with this violinist for nine months until the operation is complete.

Now, it would be beyond commendable to go through with this operation and stay attached for the duration. But this was not something that you actively asked for. The morally right thing to do would be to sit there for nine months bearing violinist at the kidney. But you would not be morally wrong if you chose to say no.

Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

ElJuski said:
In the grand scheme of things, the woman's right to life out-trumps the child's. The woman's right to abortion helps facilitate that need. Now, this does NOT mean, by any means, that abortion should be completely legal and encouraged. That's what I think is the disconnect for many people. Legalizing abortion will not, in turn, encourage abortion if there are means set in place that it would be used in special circumstances. Vigilance in a moral and a legal sense is needed to keep things moving smoothly.

I suppose only if it is probable that the woman may die from childbirth. But some people talk of abortion like its another form of contraception. Its a big turn off, really.

Jan 25, 2009#186

Kitty Sinatra

Futureking said:
some people talk of abortion like its another form of contraception. Its a big turn off, really.

Shit, man. There's this chick lives down the hall from me. We passed by each other in the hall once in a while, and I thought "meh, she's alright." But then, check this out, my neighbour - a right nosy bitch this neighbour - told me, whispered at me how this chick has had like seven abortions in the past 3 years. Well, I don't think I hafta tell you, but I had to get me a new second look at this chick. So I grabbed me a bottle of wine, picked up some flowers and knocked on her door. When she answered, I saw her in a whole new light. Smoking hot. I was right turned on. There was nothing gonna stop my fires that night. I used all my moves and I had her on the floor before the flowers were in the vase or the wine was uncorked. And oh boy is she fertile. Got her pregnant that night. The next week she got herself an abortion and and I was back in her apartment quick as you could say "Casanova." Didn't even bother bringing no wine or flowers. She was just rarin' ta get pregnant again.

She must've aborted 13 of my babies before I grew bored of her.

Jan 25, 2009#187

Bubble181

Gruebeard said:
Futureking said:

some people talk of abortion like its another form of contraception. Its a big turn off, really.

Click to expand...

Shit, man. There's this chick lives down the hall from me. We passed by each other in the hall once in a while, and I thought "meh, she's alright." But then, check this out, my neighbour - a right nosy bitch this neighbour - told me, whispered at me how this chick has had like seven abortions in the past 3 years. Well, I don't think I hafta tell you, but I had to get me a new second look at this chick. So I grabbed me a bottle of wine, picked up some flowers and knocked on her door. When she answered, I saw her in a whole new light. Smoking hot. I was right turned on. There was nothing gonna stop my fires that night. I used all my moves and I had her on the floor before the flowers were in the vase or the wine was uncorked. And oh boy is she fertile. Got her pregnant that night. The next week she got herself an abortion and and I was back in her apartment quick as you could say "Casanova." Didn't even bother bringing no wine or flowers. She was just rarin' ta get pregnant again.

She must've aborted 13 of my babies before I grew bored of her.

Ahhh, those three months of ours, I'll never forget them either, my dear.

Jan 25, 2009#188

ElJuski

Futureking said:
Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

Yes, of course. And surely that would sway most people to act upon their conscience. But that does not mean that you are morally obligated to keep the violinist. Just morally inclined.

Futreking said:
I suppose only if it is probable that the woman may die from childbirth. But some people talk of abortion like its another form of contraception. Its a big turn off, really.

Well here's the thing--those people are in the moral wrong, and it is quite unfortunate that people would use abortion like a throwaway condom. If we are talking about destroying a life--in the fetus phase and beyond--I think we're talking murder.

However, that murder is relative, and in certain instances a necessary evil that one must take to protect the rights of the citizenry. I think abortions for all is taking it much too far. But I think it's neglectful and sad that there isn't a safety net for those certain circumstances. At the least we need to open up channels to have options available. And I don't think that considering abortion murder is the end-all to the argument, since I think many people are being hypocritical standing by absolutisms.

Jan 25, 2009#189

Bubble181

ElJuski said:
Futureking said:

Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. And surely that would sway most people to act upon their conscience. But that does not mean that you are morally obligated to keep the violinist. Just morally inclined.

Now, replace the world's greatest violinist with Hitler, and let's restart the discsussion. Do you keep him alive?

Jan 25, 2009#190

Kitty Sinatra

Bubble181 said:
ElJuski said:

Futureking said:

Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. And surely that would sway most people to act upon their conscience. But that does not mean that you are morally obligated to keep the violinist. Just morally inclined.

Click to expand...

Now, replace the world's greatest violinist with Hitler, and let's restart the discsussion. Do you keep him alive?

oooh, Juski! You've just been Godwin'd. You ain't gonna take that now are ya?

Fight!

Fight!

Fight!

(I'll earn that Troll vote yet!)

Jan 25, 2009#191

ElJuski

Bubble181 said:
ElJuski said:

Futureking said:

Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. And surely that would sway most people to act upon their conscience. But that does not mean that you are morally obligated to keep the violinist. Just morally inclined.

Click to expand...

Now, replace the world's greatest violinist with Hitler, and let's restart the discsussion. Do you keep him alive?

I actually think that was part of the essay :lol:

There were some other good anecdotes too. One was about a baby growing inside of a house, and it was either the mother shot the super huge baby or the baby ate her, or something. It's been a few years, so yes, that's probably not it at all.

Jan 25, 2009#192

Allen, who is Quiet

Futureking said:
I suppose only if it is probable that the woman may die from childbirth. But some people talk of abortion like its another form of contraception. Its a big turn off, really.

I think allow abortions for those who need it is more important than denying it for those who don't. Some people probably will just use it as a fail-safe in case of the pill not working or having accidentally used a swiss condom, but you can't judge the procedure by people who abuse the system. The judgment should be based on the merits and demerits of the system itself. If somebody is getting their carpet vacuumed constantly (to put it one way), they shouldn't be affecting whether or not somebody should be allowed to legally get an abortion.

And in the time it took me to type this all out, a bunch of other people posted. Oh well.

Jan 25, 2009#193

Bubble181

Gruebeard said:
Bubble181 said:

ElJuski said:

Futureking said:

Question. If you're the violinist's only hope, wouldn't you practically have a part in his/her suffering or death if you refuse?

Click to expand...

Yes, of course. And surely that would sway most people to act upon their conscience. But that does not mean that you are morally obligated to keep the violinist. Just morally inclined.

Click to expand...

Now, replace the world's greatest violinist with Hitler, and let's restart the discsussion. Do you keep him alive?

Click to expand...

oooh, Juski! You've just been Godwin'd. You ain't gonna take that now are ya?

Fight!

Fight!

Fight!

(I'll earn that Troll vote yet!)

Psht. *I* had to Godwin. You should've done it hours ago. You fail at trolling!

Also, tolling is far too much fun sometimes.

Jan 25, 2009#194

A thread about abortion has garnered 0 reports. None.

The thread about the fucking Oscars got like 4.

I love this place! :unibrow:

Jan 25, 2009#195

Philosopher B.

Edrondol said:
A thread about abortion has garnered 0 reports. None.

The thread about the fucking Oscars got like 4.

Movies = serious business.

Jan 25, 2009#196

Bubble181

And it's not true, either. This thread HAS been reported.

Jan 25, 2009#197

makare

Probably more about expectation. If you are walking in a field and someone throws shit at you, you can be justifiable pissed. If you purposely jump into a huge vat of shit, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Jan 25, 2009#198

Iaculus

makare1 said:
Probably more about expectation. If you are walking in a field and someone throws shit at you, you can be justifiable pissed. If you purposely jump into a huge vat of shit, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Depends who was chasing you...

Jan 25, 2009#199

F

Futureking

makare1 said:
Probably more about expectation. If you are walking in a field and someone throws shit at you, you can be justifiable pissed. If you purposely jump into a huge vat of shit, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Actually, its getting pretty civil since steinman got bored with this thread and went looking for a new one.

Jan 25, 2009#200

Kitty Sinatra

Futureking said:
Actually, its getting pretty civil since steinman got bored with this thread and went looking for a new one.

:sadness: I'm just not trolling well enough. :waah:

Jan 25, 2009#201

Gruebeard said:
:sadness: I'm just not trolling well enough. :waah:

Follow Neon's example in this thread and you'll do fine.

(And no, I am not referring to his position on the matter.)

Jan 25, 2009#202

Bubble181 said:
And it's not true, either. This thread HAS been reported.

That's because you reported my last post, you dork.

Jan 25, 2009#203

ElJuski

I was really hoping I could have somebody actually getting into my argument. But it appears silence has fallen on the field, which makes me think two things.

(A)- The anti-abortion people can't refute it
(B)- The anti-abortion people are staying away from this thread, for fear that they'll have to refute my claim.

I just really wanted to chomp down on something! Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

Jan 25, 2009#204

makare

ElJuski said:
Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

welcome to my world.... we are much abused here.

Jan 25, 2009#205

JONJONAUG

ElJuski said:
I was really hoping I could have somebody actually getting into my argument. But it appears silence has fallen on the field, which makes me think two things.

(A)- The anti-abortion people can't refute it
(B)- The anti-abortion people are staying away from this thread, for fear that they'll have to refute my claim.

I just really wanted to chomp down on something! Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

Actually it was because I got bored and went to go replay Sam and Max games (episodes 3 and 5 of the second season, funniest games ever made).

And now I'm tired and don't feel like playing with you guys in this thread anymore. I'm going to bed.

Jan 26, 2009#206

I

Icarus

Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Jan 26, 2009#207

Iaculus

Icarus said:
Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Adoption.

It has its limitations, but it's an available third option much of the time.

Jan 26, 2009#208

F

Futureking

ElJuski said:
I was really hoping I could have somebody actually getting into my argument. But it appears silence has fallen on the field, which makes me think two things.

(A)- The anti-abortion people can't refute it
(B)- The anti-abortion people are staying away from this thread, for fear that they'll have to refute my claim.

I just really wanted to chomp down on something! Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

It was an argument I got myself into a few posts ago?
:bush:

It wasn't a very good one if I didn't feel like arguing. I want my money back.

Jan 26, 2009#209

ElJuski

Futureking said:
ElJuski said:

I was really hoping I could have somebody actually getting into my argument. But it appears silence has fallen on the field, which makes me think two things.

(A)- The anti-abortion people can't refute it
(B)- The anti-abortion people are staying away from this thread, for fear that they'll have to refute my claim.

I just really wanted to chomp down on something! Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

Click to expand...

It was an argument I got myself into a few posts ago?
:bush:

It wasn't a very good one if I didn't feel like arguing. I want my money back.

Yeah, I know you did, and I appreciate that. But it kinda tapered off after two posts, amirite?

Jan 26, 2009#210

F

Futureking

ElJuski said:
Futureking said:

ElJuski said:

I was really hoping I could have somebody actually getting into my argument. But it appears silence has fallen on the field, which makes me think two things.

(A)- The anti-abortion people can't refute it
(B)- The anti-abortion people are staying away from this thread, for fear that they'll have to refute my claim.

I just really wanted to chomp down on something! Or at least start understanding where the other end comes from.

Click to expand...

It was an argument I got myself into a few posts ago?
:bush:

It wasn't a very good one if I didn't feel like arguing. I want my money back.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I know you did, and I appreciate that. But it kinda tapered off after two posts, amirite?

Not much to argue about. We've pretty much established some points
1) Abortion is ok only if the life of the mother is in danger. And only if there are no alternatives to save both mother and baby.
2) If the mother's life is in danger, but she's adamantly against it, we respect the woman's wishes

I mean. "Rah rah let the mother die" isn't exactly a moral high ground. The "Abortion is contraception" stance isn't my cup of tea either.

Jan 26, 2009#211

Kitty Sinatra

Futureking said:
Not much to argue about. We've pretty much established some points
1) Abortion is ok only if the life of the mother is in danger

That'd be a point I would argue with if I was interested in arguing this. I firmly believe that abortion is ok under any circumstance deemed acceptable by the woman bearing the kid.

But Juski wants an argument with the other side of the issue, so I won't bother explaining why that's my position.

Jan 26, 2009#212

ElJuski

Right, so you aren't exactly on the other side of the fence

thhp: I was hoping that Neon or Stienman or even Espy would take a crack at it (I especially have a lot of respect for Espy's religious stance, because the mothafucka is a scholar).

Gruebeard--I mean, go ahead and switch it around to what you want. I guess we're not really getting anywhere anymore as it stands. I was just taking smaller steps from the other side, try and find a rational consensus.

Jan 26, 2009#213

F

Futureking

Gruebeard said:
Futureking said:

Not much to argue about. We've pretty much established some points
1) Abortion is ok only if the life of the mother is in danger

Click to expand...

That'd be a point I would argue with if I was interested in arguing this. I firmly believe that abortion is ok under any circumstance deemed acceptable by the woman bearing the kid.

But Juski wants an argument with the other side of the issue, so I won't bother explaining why that's my position.

Gruebeard said:
Shit, man. There's this chick lives down the hall from me. We passed by each other in the hall once in a while, and I thought "meh, she's alright." But then, check this out, my neighbour - a right nosy bitch this neighbour - told me, whispered at me how this chick has had like seven abortions in the past 3 years. Well, I don't think I hafta tell you, but I had to get me a new second look at this chick. So I grabbed me a bottle of wine, picked up some flowers and knocked on her door. When she answered, I saw her in a whole new light. Smoking hot. I was right turned on. There was nothing gonna stop my fires that night. I used all my moves and I had her on the floor before the flowers were in the vase or the wine was uncorked. And oh boy is she fertile. Got her pregnant that night. The next week she got herself an abortion and and I was back in her apartment quick as you could say "Casanova." Didn't even bother bringing no wine or flowers. She was just rarin' ta get pregnant again.

She must've aborted 13 of my babies before I grew bored of her.

Gruebeard said:
Bubble181 said:

Now, replace the world's greatest violinist with Hitler, and let's restart the discsussion. Do you keep him alive?

Click to expand...

oooh, Juski! You've just been Godwin'd. You ain't gonna take that now are ya?

Fight!

Fight!

Fight!

(I'll earn that Troll vote yet!)

Gruebeard said:
Futureking said:

Actually, its getting pretty civil since steinman got bored with this thread and went looking for a new one.

Click to expand...

:sadness: I'm just not trolling well enough. :waah:

He's trolling. Eat him, jrue-ski.

Jan 26, 2009#214

ElJuski

:sobad:

Jan 26, 2009#215

Chibibar

Iaculus said:
Icarus said:

Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Click to expand...

Adoption.

It has its limitations, but it's an available third option much of the time.

adoption are only available to a limited amount of people (generally none same sex couples, etc etc etc)

There are kids who never get to be adopted and put into society. some DO turn out well and some don't. The moral part gets very tricky really fast when you think about all the "exceptional" situation.

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

What if we made abortion illegal and require everyone to give up 2% of their paycheck (before deduction so it would be a require tax for everyone like sales tax without exception)to ensure these kids will have a future if they don't get adopted or have medical help for them.

Jan 26, 2009#216

Iaculus

Chibibar said:
Iaculus said:

Icarus said:

Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Click to expand...

Adoption.

It has its limitations, but it's an available third option much of the time.

Click to expand...

adoption are only available to a limited amount of people (generally none same sex couples, etc etc etc)

There are kids who never get to be adopted and put into society. some DO turn out well and some don't. The moral part gets very tricky really fast when you think about all the "exceptional" situation.

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

What if we made abortion illegal and require everyone to give up 2% of their paycheck (before deduction so it would be a require tax for everyone like sales tax without exception)to ensure these kids will have a future if they don't get adopted or have medical help for them.

Oh, I know the downsides - check out what happened in Romania when Ceaucescu outlawed abortion and tried to replace it with adoption. Or don't, if you're disinclined to look up horribly depressing stuff and ruin your day.

It's just that in these debates there's often the false dichotomy of abort/keep in all situations, which was what I wanted to point out. Adoption isn't a blanket solution by any means, but it's certainly an alleviator.

Jan 26, 2009#217

F

Futureking

Chibibar said:
What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

No. A child should not be denied the right to life just because of unfavourable genes.

Maybe its the way you put it. But did you just compare the value of a child's life to savings in tax dollars?

Jan 26, 2009#218

Iaculus

Futureking said:
Chibibar said:

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

Click to expand...

No. A child should not be denied the right to life just because of unfavourable genes.

Maybe its the way you put it. But did you just compare the value of a child's life to savings in tax dollars?

In actuarial terms, a human life is worth roughly two and a half million dollars. Currency is a form of opportunity - you can use the same amount of money to help one person a lot, another person a lot, or several people a little. Thus, considerations of money in ethical disputes are valid, though not nearly as flippantly as some use them.

Just saying.

Jan 26, 2009#219

F

Futureking

Iaculus said:
Futureking said:

Chibibar said:

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

Click to expand...

No. A child should not be denied the right to life just because of unfavourable genes.

Maybe its the way you put it. But did you just compare the value of a child's life to savings in tax dollars?

Click to expand...

In actuarial terms, a human life is worth roughly two and a half million dollars. Currency is a form of opportunity - you can use the same amount of money to help one person a lot, another person a lot, or several people a little. Thus, considerations of money in ethical disputes are valid, though not nearly as flippantly as some use them.

Just saying.

Now that reminds me of a good joke.

[Insert the names of 3 politicians you dislike]

The three of them were in a helicopter.

Politician 1: I will throw this $100 note out of this helicopter. The guy who picks it up will be happy
Politician 2: Well, I'll throw two $50 notes. And there will be TWO happy people
Politician 3: I shall throw ten $10 notes out of the helicopter. And TEN people will be happy

In the midst of their squabble, the helicopter crashed. And the people of the nation were happy.

Jan 26, 2009#220

Iaculus

Well, yes, governmental inaction is also a valid option. If you want to take money (or any other resource) out of society for a certain use, you have to be sure that said society's existing systems are not doing a better job of it.

Jan 26, 2009#221

JCM

In actuarial terms, a human life is worth roughly two and a half million dollars. Currency is a form of opportunity - you can use the same amount of money to help one person a lot, another person a lot, or several people a little. Thus, considerations of money in ethical disputes are valid, though not nearly as flippantly as some use them.

Just saying.

Yep.

Its easy for some people to pretend they have the moral high ground because they didnt "murder" a fetus, but take a look at the life of Palestinian orphans, children in Somalia and the child prostitutes of Brazil and tell me thats humane.

If they are going to bring "murder" and the like to a debate on abortion, theres no problem in bringing the more logical problem, money to raise unwanted children, and their life, into it.

Chibibar said:
Iaculus said:

Icarus said:

Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Click to expand...

Adoption.

It has its limitations, but it's an available third option much of the time.

Click to expand...

adoption are only available to a limited amount of people (generally none same sex couples, etc etc etc)

There are kids who never get to be adopted and put into society. some DO turn out well and some don't. The moral part gets very tricky really fast when you think about all the "exceptional" situation.

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

What if we made abortion illegal and require everyone to give up 2% of their paycheck (before deduction so it would be a require tax for everyone like sales tax without exception)to ensure these kids will have a future if they don't get adopted or have medical help for them.

This.

Probably less than half of unwanted children/orphans are adopted.

Jan 26, 2009#222

Chibibar

Futureking said:
Chibibar said:

What if the baby is going to be born without parents, the baby is going to have major health issues (since the parents have health issue) what if the baby is going to be deformed? what if the baby is missing limbs when he/she is born? What if the baby requires life support at least 1 year before it can survive on its own. Who is going to pay for all that? my sister just had a baby (back in September) and it cost a bundle for a normal baby to be born (medical insurance and such) but if this future baby do no have parents (i.e. given up for adoption) would you mind your tax dollar to pay for that?

Click to expand...

No. A child should not be denied the right to life just because of unfavourable genes.

Maybe its the way you put it. But did you just compare the value of a child's life to savings in tax dollars?

in a way, yes... how many of us are willing to give up their personal income for a plan that "may work" to appease the masses?

In this modern time, having a child cost a lot of money. We are talking about medical expenses, school, clothing, taxes, etc etc you name it. Anyone on this forum can give us a rough estimate on the cost BUT the return is more than worth for many people (when it is their own child) because you are raising something of you own.

But when we talk about murder, killing, or anything like that, it takes money to NOT do these things. It cost a lot of money to keep prisoner in jail rather than kill them off. As humans, we have many rights to live, fair trials and such, but do we have the right to bring a child into the world where his/her life may not be as equal as if they had a parent? even a single parent would be better than none. It is better than to have a system (which IMO broken in many ways) to raise a child and hoping to be a productive member of society. It is hard enough to get normal kids to be adopted, but what about a child that could cost the new family hundred if not thousands of dollars to keep the child healthy. More than likely if no abortion is available, then there must be another system in place to ensure the child is going to grow up normal and have a fair share as if the child had a parent (or two)

I donate every year as part of our school district program and we had people come to our campus every year asking for money from donation to keep these facilities like adoption, halfway homes and such in place to ensure the child's future, but if the government is NOT spending on these system (or enough) for people to ask for donation, what about mandatory tax... would people vote for it?

It is nice for us to debate all day long, but when it starts hitting your personal bank account, where do you stand? (note: this is a general "you" I am not targeting anyone in particular)

Jan 26, 2009#223

I

Icarus

Iaculus said:
Icarus said:

Every abortion topic always raises the following question with me: why would you ever want to be so cruel to a baby to force it to be born in a world where it was unwanted by its parents. Life is more than about life - there's already too many children out there made to fend for themselves because their mother doesn't give a damn and their father gives them a beating every night and those are the ones that grow up to be criminals, sociopaths, etc.

Click to expand...

Adoption.

It has its limitations, but it's an available third option much of the time.

You're forgetting one thing. Adoption is not forced on these parents. I don't think I'll be far off when I say that less than 20% of parents that have an unwanted child would actually put it up for adoption when they aren't able to use abortion.

I personally know a couple that was only together for a few weeks. Girl gets pregnant but is convinced by her parents that she shouldn't have it aborted. By the time the baby is nearly born, she managed to get used to the idea of having a child. The father and her try to act like a standard couple expecting a baby. Baby gets born, a month of bliss and then the paint starts to fleck. The father loses interest in the mother (post-pregnancy she wasn't quite as attractive anymore). They break up and the baby becomes a serious burden. She had to take another job so she could support it: working night shifts at a factory. Now, the kid was never put up for adoption yet its life is far from great. A father who doesn't give a damn, a mother that is out for work all day while her mother "cares" for him (= he's in a small play pen around the clock). Whenever I see the mother with her son, I never ever see any spark of happiness or even that she cares for the kid. She dumps it at whatever relative she can find whenever she can. I feel really bad for the kid because it's obvious that he's not receiving a lot of affection except maybe from his great-grandparents.

Anyway, long story but it's just one example of how parents will often TRY to make things work because they HAVE to. The kid is getting born so they might as well give it a try. The problem is that once its part of their life, as much as its hated, they refuse to give it up for adoption for many reasons, the main one being a serious social stigma. Having a baby and then suddenly giving it away is not something that many mothers want to admit to. Abortion is much easier - no-one has to even know about the pregnancy!

Jan 26, 2009#224

zero

Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

Jan 26, 2009#225

Bubble181

A good solution to teenage pregnancy: start young enough. I knew a girl in high school who got pregnant at 12 (the father was 10, WTF?!). The baby was raised by the grandparents as a younger brother to her and as far as I know, the child still doesn't know that his "parents" are in fact his grandparents. Just has an sister 6 years older and one 12 years older. Heh.
Mind you, that family's all kinds of fucked up on a lot of other counts as well, but they do seem to take good care of the child....or at least, as much as they did their other children (.e. not enough,but hey).

Jan 26, 2009#226

Bubble181

zero said:
Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

So if he's emo, we get to kill him? Awesome!

Jan 26, 2009#227

zero

Bubble181 said:
zero said:

Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

Click to expand...

So if he's emo, we get to kill him? Awesome!

Win-Win scenario, right?

Jan 26, 2009#228

Le Quack

Let's talk about keeping babies that are born already alive, before we start talking about saving the ones that are getting brutally murdered as two-three cell clumps.

Universal Healthcare anybody?

Jan 26, 2009#229

A

Amy old

A solution to the abortion problem: If the mother doesn't want the child, force her to deliver the baby anyway, and then locate and kill the father. If it's twins, find the father's closest male relative and kill him as well. If she doesn't know who the father is, kill her instead, after THE ALL IMPORTANT BABY is born, of course. Balance will be achieved.

Or you know, let the woman choose what's best for her instead of relegating her existence as a uterus life support machine for a child who will be born unwanted.

Oh wait, we live in a Utopian society that risks no global overpopulation issues, where every child given up for adoption is accepted into a loving two parent heterosexual home! Phew!

Jan 26, 2009#230

Espy

Le Quack said:
Universal Healthcare anybody?

Hey, hey, hey, lets keep things civil. No need to break out a nasty topic like that.

ElJuski said:
Right, so you aren't exactly on the other side of the fence thhp: I was hoping that Neon or Stienman or even Espy would take a crack at it (I especially have a lot of respect for Espy's religious stance, because the mothafucka is a scholar).

And sorry Juski, I just don't feel like going into a deep argument about something that can't really be moved forward since we have such different bases we are building on. You know as well as I do the difference between someone slitting your throat in order to steal your wallet and killing on the battlefield or in self defense. I'm not saying one is more valid or better, but it's obvious there is a difference. If abortion is truly the intentional killing of a human being then I'm sure you can see why people would want it stopped yes? And if it's not then, of course, why not abort if it's inconvenient? Although I would say we must then discuss where we start valuing potential life...
Does that make sense? I'm in class so I'm only half here right now...

Jan 26, 2009#231

JCM

Bingo LeQuack.

zero said:
Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

Yeah, ask that to the brazilian child prostitutes, ethopian starving kids and street children.

Jesus fuck, its amazing how some would pretend so much outrage over a fetus that can die if you prenetrate deep while having sex, exercise, heck, a fetus that has a good 50% of dying in the first few months, but not give a shit on making a human being suffer.

:eyeroll:

Or you know, let the mother choose what's best for her instead of relegating her existence as a uterus life support machine for a child who will be born unwanted.

Amen.

Although on the other issue at hand, unwanted children/orphans, we'd get rid of much siffeing if we'd treat homosexual couples like equals and let them adopt.

Jan 26, 2009#232

A

Amy old

Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Jan 26, 2009#233

zero

JCM said:
Bingo LeQuack.

zero said:

Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

Click to expand...

Yeah, ask that to the brazilian child prostitutes, ethopian starving kids and street children.

Their life is miserable beyond imagination... and still they want to live. That's all life imperative...

Jan 26, 2009#234

A

Amy old

zero said:
JCM said:

Bingo LeQuack.

zero said:

Well, sure, life is pain, but...

... in a few years, go ask the baby if he'd rather being DEAD.

Click to expand...

Yeah, ask that to the brazilian child prostitutes, ethopian starving kids and street children.

Click to expand...

Their life is miserable beyond imagination... and still they want to live. That's all life imperative...

Proof?

Because without any, you're making general statements based on hypotheticals to support your position. JCM on the other hand, has posted pictoral evidence that people in fact do not all want to live.

Jan 26, 2009#235

Bubble181

There are an infinite amount of disconnects on this topic, anyway.
The biggest disconnect is right at the start: when is it "alive". Heck, when is it "human"? These are two different questions - at 2 weeks, there's no visible difference between a dog embryo, a human embryo, or even a dolphin embryo.
Since people will disagree on this forever, the rest of the debate becomes, quite often, completely useless. If person A believes life begins at conception, his view will obviously differ from that of one who believes life begins at birth.
Both of these seem inherently flawed to me (on the one hand, conception takes place a heck of a lot more than we think - it would mean practically every woman with an active sex life has had half a dozen miscarriages, easily; on the other hand, saying birth is the marker would mean an 8-month-old baby that can survive on its own wouldn't, technically, be alive yet...which makes no sense).
A second problem is that, even accepting the same base, it's still possible to have wildly divergent views. Based on religion or other moral/ethical grounds, it can be considered either OK or not to terminate this life. Or, taking the other view, it can be OK or not to terminate this not-life.
Or, it can be OK to terminate this life (or not-life) up to a certain point in time (either determined as the point it becomes life, or not, as the case may be).
Then there's the added problem of when it is OK or not. While the two extremes are possible, there's all kinds of middle steps of rape, incest, physical harm to the mother, physical harm to the baby, deformities, social acceptance, wanted or not, and so on and so on. I could yammer on another hour, but I've grown tired of myself, so I stop now...for now.

Jan 26, 2009#236

JCM

Proof?

Because without any, you're making general statements based on hypotheticals to support your position. JCM on the other hand, has posted pictoral evidence that people in fact do not all want to live.

Guess somebody has never seen the US suicide rate, or better, the Japanese one?
EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Yeah, life's swell, everyone wants to live.

Amy said:
Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Im crossing my fingers and hoping you get it.

All the legal gay couples I know are awesome people who'd make better parents than some kid who got knocked up and because some dumbass pope/outrage activist/legislator wants to control her body, is forced to raise a kid she never wanted.The biggest disconnect is right at the start: when is it "alive". Heck, when is it "human"?

These are two different questions - at 2 weeks, there's no visible difference between a dog embryo, a human embryo, or even a dolphin embryo.
Since people will disagree on this forever, the rest of the debate becomes, quite often, completely useless. If person A believes life begins at conception, his view will obviously differ from that of one who believes life begins at birth.

Which brings us to the question, why the fuck dont we ban sex, exercise, drinking and etc for the first months of pregnancy? Heck, if life begins at conception, have every woman post-unprotected sex be forced into a regime of a balanced diet and daily routine to improve the chances of those many fetoes after conception actually making it.

But hey, its okay to order a woman to have an unwanted child, but bad to tell her husband to stop fucking her, even though the last could pretty much kill a fetus (happened to me, twice)

Jan 26, 2009#237

zero

Amy said:
Proof?
Because without any, you're making general statements based on hypotheticals to support your position. JCM on the other hand, has posted pictoral evidence that people in fact do not all want to live.

Are you for real???

If you are going to tell me that suicide rates are higher on miserable people, I'll answer "well duh"...

Of course some people end up killing themselves... I won't deny it, nor I need to... the fact is (and if you want proof, I can pull suicide rates and GPD per capita, or HDI, or whatever...) the VAST majority of human beings, and yes, even the very miserable, just want to live.

Jan 26, 2009#238

makare

I've always wondered about this, if life begins at conception why do we celebrate birthdays instead of Conception Day! or the day mom found out she was pregnant day... you know what I mean.

Jan 26, 2009#239

JCM

:eyeroll: @ hypocritical outrage.

Jan 26, 2009#240

zero

JCM said:
Guess somebody has never seen the US suicide rate, or better, the Japanese one?
EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Wanna bet on a POSITIVE correlation on legalization of induced abortion and suicide rates?

But I won't be dishonest enough to claim that abortion leads to more suicides... statistics are a dangerous thing, you can pull almost whatever you want out of them...

Jan 26, 2009#241

SeraRelm

Amy said:
Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Hoping for the same, eventually. :|

Jan 26, 2009#242

JCM

zero said:
JCM said:

Guess somebody has never seen the US suicide rate, or better, the Japanese one?
EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Click to expand...

My hypothetical opinion good, statistics bad?

My apologies, but is that what you are trying to say when Amy called you out to prove your point? Again, apologies if I misunderstood it, as increased pregancy rates among teenagers and low-income families brings a higher suicide rate as well, some examples-
http://www.teenshelter.org/data.htm
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/lo ... 39339.aspx

Although I do remember once reading that abortions among middle-class families lead to a higher suicide rate, anyway, again- Why the fuck dont we ban sex, exercise, drinking and etc for the first months of pregnancy? Heck, if life begins at conception, have every woman post-unprotected sex be forced into a regime of a balanced diet and daily routine to improve the chances of those many fetoes after conception actually making it.

But hey, its okay to order a woman to have an unwanted child, but bad to tell her husband to stop fucking her, even though the last could pretty much kill a fetus (happened to me, twice)

If you wanna treat a fetus like a person, go all the way mate, or like Amy has suggested-

Amy said:
let the mother choose what's best for her instead of relegating her existence as a uterus life support machine for a child who will be born unwanted.

Jan 26, 2009#243

The Lovely Boehner

Amy said:
Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Best of luck, I really hope you get it.

Jan 26, 2009#244

Iaculus

Amy said:
Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Mmm? Thought you already had one.

Best of luck anyway.

Jan 26, 2009#245

Bubble181

Amy and parnter: go for it!
Sera and partner: go for it!
Shego and partner: Run for the hills! They'll raise one like her!

:-P

Jan 26, 2009#246

zero

JCM said:
zero said:

JCM said:

Guess somebody has never seen the US suicide rate, or better, the Japanese one?
EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Click to expand...

My hypothetical opinion good, statistics bad?

Click to expand...

My apologies, but is that what you are trying to say when Amy called you out to prove your point? Again, apologies if I misunderstood it.

Fair enough... I was claiming that, despite the tragedy of people committing suicide, they are (yes, even in Lithuania, with their impressive 70 suicides / year x 100.000 habitants) an exception. Even more, if you compare that list with some indicators of quality of life, such as GDP per capita, or Human Development Index, you will notice that surprisingly, suicide rates aren't higher on countries you would expect people to be more miserable. To cheat even more on statistics, check those two pictures:

Suicide rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicide_rates_map.svg
Legalization of induced abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AbortionLawsMap-NoLegend.png

Notice that apparently, suicide rates aren't smaller on countries that legalize abortion!

Now, as I said, I won't claim that criminalization of abortion solves the suicide problem, that would be ridicule (despite the fact that I managed to cook some statistics supporting this claim!).

What I'm saying is that vast majority of people, and yes, even those miserable-beyond-worlds prostitute children in Brazil, want to remain alive. That's the imperative (perhaps too cruel) of every sentient being on earth.

Jan 26, 2009#247

Iaculus

Bubble181 said:
Amy and parnter: go for it!
Sera and partner: go for it!
Shego and partner: Run for the hills! They'll raise one like her!

:-P

Don't worry, folks - I'm all over it. Just running up contracts with a couple dozen different countries' defence agencies - you'd be amazed, the price pre-made humanoid killing machines can fetch these days.

Now, how shall we split this...?

Jan 26, 2009#248

ElJuski

Espy said:
Le Quack said:

Universal Healthcare anybody?

Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey, lets keep things civil. No need to break out a nasty topic like that.

ElJuski said:

Right, so you aren't exactly on the other side of the fence thhp: I was hoping that Neon or Stienman or even Espy would take a crack at it (I especially have a lot of respect for Espy's religious stance, because the mothafucka is a scholar).

Click to expand...

And sorry Juski, I just don't feel like going into a deep argument about something that can't really be moved forward since we have such different bases we are building on. You know as well as I do the difference between someone slitting your throat in order to steal your wallet and killing on the battlefield or in self defense. I'm not saying one is more valid or better, but it's obvious there is a difference. If abortion is truly the intentional killing of a human being then I'm sure you can see why people would want it stopped yes? And if it's not then, of course, why not abort if it's inconvenient? Although I would say we must then discuss where we start valuing potential life...
Does that make sense? I'm in class so I'm only half here right now...

Of course, you make a fair assessment at saying that cold-blooded murder and murder on the battlefield are different. That's my point; there's death for the sake of death and there's death for the sake of a different cause--necessity, perhaps, or defense--the law should recognize the difference and allow abortions in cases of rape or danger to the woman. I don't care if they open up the abortion laws further,but I think its fair to say we should protect the currently living before the fetus.

Inconvenience isn't really my issue. Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience. What this country needs is a respect for the matter and for the child, and an alternative in various circumstances.

Jan 26, 2009#249

ElJuski said:
Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience.

Define "inconvenience."

Jan 26, 2009#250

Kitty Sinatra

ElJuski said:
Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience.

I refer you to my post about the chick who lives down the hall from me to display my absolute agreement with your opinion.

Jan 26, 2009#251

JCM

ElJuski said:
Inconvenience isn't really my issue. Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience.

No problem.

Just also-
a)Castrate rapists, and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child, because of some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) want a raped girl to have her life destroyed further by having to raise a kid.

b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and according to the PETA-ish "murder"crowd, they should be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory.

c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child and some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) are forcing them to raise a kid on their own to please their morals.

d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise, because again- Why the fuck dont we ban sex, exercise, drinking and etc for the first months of pregnancy? Heck, if life begins at conception, have every woman post-unprotected sex be forced into a regime of a balanced diet and daily routine to improve the chances of those many fetoes after conception actually making it.

But hey, its okay to order a woman to have an unwanted child, but bad to tell her husband to stop fucking her, even though the last could pretty much kill a fetus (happened to me, twice)

If some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) want to control a woman's body, make sure the decision to have sex is HERS and only hers, because so far all I see is a bunch of hypocrites telling women they aren't allowed control over their bodies, yet sadly most often its a man who causes that unwanted pregnancy.

Make sure that NEVER will a man be able to cause an unwanted pregnancy upon a woman, and i'll agree that abortion is murder, because destroying a woman's life and plans for an orgasm should be too.

Jan 26, 2009#252

Espy

ElJuski said:
Espy said:

Le Quack said:

Universal Healthcare anybody?

Click to expand...

Hey, hey, hey, lets keep things civil. No need to break out a nasty topic like that.

ElJuski said:

Right, so you aren't exactly on the other side of the fence thhp: I was hoping that Neon or Stienman or even Espy would take a crack at it (I especially have a lot of respect for Espy's religious stance, because the mothafucka is a scholar).

Click to expand...

And sorry Juski, I just don't feel like going into a deep argument about something that can't really be moved forward since we have such different bases we are building on. You know as well as I do the difference between someone slitting your throat in order to steal your wallet and killing on the battlefield or in self defense. I'm not saying one is more valid or better, but it's obvious there is a difference. If abortion is truly the intentional killing of a human being then I'm sure you can see why people would want it stopped yes? And if it's not then, of course, why not abort if it's inconvenient? Although I would say we must then discuss where we start valuing potential life...
Does that make sense? I'm in class so I'm only half here right now...

Click to expand...

Of course, you make a fair assessment at saying that cold-blooded murder and murder on the battlefield are different. That's my point; there's death for the sake of death and there's death for the sake of a different cause--necessity, perhaps, or defense--the law should recognize the difference and allow abortions in cases of rape or danger to the woman. I don't care if they open up the abortion laws further,but I think its fair to say we should protect the currently living before the fetus.

Inconvenience isn't really my issue. Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience. What this country needs is a respect for the matter and for the child, and an alternative in various circumstances.

Fair enough. Thanks for the discussion. My respect for you is immeasurable my good man.
*tips Top Hat and raises glass of scotch.

Jan 26, 2009#253

Kitty Sinatra

Espy said:
*tips Top Hat and raises glass of scotch.

That better be butterscotch, young man. If the religious right sees a baby drinking they'll reinstate Prohibition, and I needs my easily accessible bourbon to get through this recession.

Jan 26, 2009#254

Espy

Gruebeard said:
Espy said:

*tips Top Hat and raises glass of scotch.

Click to expand...

That better be butterscotch, young man. If the religious right sees a baby drinking they'll reinstate Prohibition, and I needs my easily accessible bourbon to get through this recession.

Bitch, I AM the religious right.

Jan 26, 2009#255

Kitty Sinatra

More like the religious wrong :moon: .

Jan 26, 2009#256

Espy

Gruebeard said:
More like the religious wrong :moon: .

Up yours fuzzybutt.

Jan 26, 2009#257

ElJuski

ZenMonkey said:
ElJuski said:

Fuck people who are doing it because a baby is inconvenience.

Click to expand...

Define "inconvenience."

Inconvenience, as in, I don't want my parents to find out and I have enough money lying around. But I should also stipulate that that shouldn't mean there should be a complete ban on abortion because some people use it as a spring clean up. Abortion should be legalized; I'd prefer if the sanctions on it were still somewhat strict, but for the case of emergencies, rape and danger to the woman it should be absolutely legalized.

The morality of the issue should be weighed in and considered, but I don't think that's the purpose of the state, beyond teaching high school kids how to wear a jimmy hat proper. People /should/ want to know better, act better, and behave responsibly.

Espy- I hope you weren't being sarcastic about the respect :zoid:

but it's always good to know I've got a go-to source about Christian morality that isn't full of weird lies and half-truths about...well, Christian morality. I'd trust your religious judgment much more than my grandma, say, who still thinks whistling indoors summons the devil. You know, just like, because.

EDIT 2: Also, @ JCM--I'm confused. I think abortion should be legal, was that whole post directed at me? >.>

Jan 26, 2009#258

Troll

Abortion should be legal, clean, safe, and a private matter for adults to decide themselves.

And it should be incredibly rare.

Jan 26, 2009#259

JCM

A Troll said:
Abortion should be legal, clean, safe, and a private matter for adults to decide themselves.

This

ElJuski said:
EDIT 2: Also, @ JCM--I'm confused. I think abortion should be legal, was that whole post directed at me? >.>

It seemed that way, so I changed it a bit,it was aimed at the anti-abortion crowd babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Which is rather idiotic in a society with domestic abuse, repeat rapists getting only a few years and fathers who can run off at will.

Jan 26, 2009#260

Espy

ElJuski said:
Espy- I hope you weren't being sarcastic about the respect but it's always good to know I've got a go-to source about Christian morality that isn't full of weird lies and half-truths about...well, Christian morality. I'd trust your religious judgment much more than my grandma, say, who still thinks whistling indoors summons the devil. You know, just like, because.

Honestly? Not one bit of sarcasm. You have my respect. For what that's worth. :bush:

JCM said:
babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

A Troll said:
And it should be incredibly rare.

If you don't mind me asking, why? If it's not a human life why should they be rare? If a woman wants to use abortion as birth control what's the problem with it? I'm not saying it's smart, but why not?

Jan 26, 2009#261

Iaculus

Either it's worth as much as a human life or it's not objectionable? False dichotomy, espy. A potentiality is worth less than a certainty, but that does not make it valueless.

Jan 26, 2009#262

Le Quack

Espy said:
A Troll said:

And it should be incredibly rare.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, why? If it's not a human life why should they be rare? If a woman wants to use abortion as birth control what's the problem with it? I'm not saying it's smart, but why not?

And a vasectomy is a great way to not have kids, lets all get them instead of using condoms.

Jan 26, 2009#263

Espy

Iaculus said:
Either it's worth as much as a human life or it's not objectionable? False dichotomy, espy. A potentiality is worth less than a certainty, but that does not make it valueless.

I'm actually asking in all sincerity, not to get in a fight. You know, that whole trying to understand what someone thinks thing. :Leyla:

Jan 26, 2009#264

Bubble181

Espy said:
A Troll said:

And it should be incredibly rare.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, why? If it's not a human life why should they be rare? If a woman wants to use abortion as birth control what's the problem with it? I'm not saying it's smart, but why not?

A) It's unhealthy
B) it's cost-ineffective
C) It's quite unpleasant
D) There's still a potentiality being destroyed. Even if one doesn't consider it of equal value to a human, it's still something. Killing a dog isn't the same as killing a man, but that doesn't mean we should all do it just for kicks.
E) Because a lot of pro-choice people feel that choice really does matter more - for all kinds of reasons - but, deep down, they do feel a bit uncomfortable about it.

Jan 26, 2009#265

Iaculus

Espy said:
Iaculus said:

Either it's worth as much as a human life or it's not objectionable? False dichotomy, espy. A potentiality is worth less than a certainty, but that does not make it valueless.

Click to expand...

I'm actually asking in all sincerity, not to get in a fight. You know, that whole trying to understand what someone thinks thing.

Despite the confrontational tone, so was I. Hence the counterargument by example in the last sentence.

Jan 26, 2009#266

ElJuski said:
Inconvenience, as in, I don't want my parents to find out and I have enough money lying around. But I should also stipulate that that shouldn't mean there should be a complete ban on abortion because some people use it as a spring clean up. Abortion should be legalized; I'd prefer if the sanctions on it were still somewhat strict, but for the case of emergencies, rape and danger to the woman it should be absolutely legalized.

What about the people who don't use it as "spring cleanup" but aren't in physical danger from the pregnancy? A condom breaks, and a responsible young single woman living from paycheck to paycheck finds herself alone and pregnant, unable to support the medical expense of a pregnancy or a child on her meager insurance and salary. Or does that count as "spring cleanup" to you? Does it matter that she was using birth control? Is this another way to punish women for having sex before marriage? Because if the woman is to be forced by legislators to carry the child to term and deliver, why isn't the man forced to do his part too? What about married women getting abortions for non-medical reasons?

These are rhetorical questions, not a challenge to your viewpoint. But they illustrate why I find it unacceptable to have other people's morals involved with this intensely personal decision, because the area is far too grey to know what is "right" and what isn't. Example: If I were an atheist, why would I possibly allow a Christian to tell me what I'm doing is against God? Why is the atheist's perspective less valid than the Christian's? (I mean from a moral standpoint, not the fact that theists overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, control federal and state legislation.)

But as has already been said a million times and several in this thread alone, this debate is completely pointless.

Jan 27, 2009#267

Le Quack

Damn those good sounding words sprout from the crazy cat lady's mouth.

Jan 27, 2009#268

ElJuski

ZenMonkey said:
ElJuski said:

Inconvenience, as in, I don't want my parents to find out and I have enough money lying around. But I should also stipulate that that shouldn't mean there should be a complete ban on abortion because some people use it as a spring clean up. Abortion should be legalized; I'd prefer if the sanctions on it were still somewhat strict, but for the case of emergencies, rape and danger to the woman it should be absolutely legalized.

Click to expand...

What about the people who don't use it as "spring cleanup" but aren't in physical danger from the pregnancy? A condom breaks, and a responsible young single woman living from paycheck to paycheck finds herself alone and pregnant, unable to support the medical expense of a pregnancy or a child on her meager insurance and salary. Or does that count as "spring cleanup" to you? Does it matter that she was using birth control? Is this another way to punish women for having sex before marriage? Because if the woman is to be forced by legislators to carry the child to term and deliver, why isn't the man forced to do his part too? What about married women getting abortions for non-medical reasons?

These are rhetorical questions, not a challenge to your viewpoint. But they illustrate why I find it unacceptable to have other people's morals involved with this intensely personal decision, because the area is far too grey to know what is "right" and what isn't. Example: If I were an atheist, why would I possibly allow a Christian to tell me what I'm doing is against God? Why is the atheist's perspective less valid than the Christian's? (I mean from a moral standpoint, not the fact that theists overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, control federal and state legislation.)

But as has already been said a million times and several in this thread alone, this debate is completely pointless.

Like I said above,

"The morality of the issue should be weighed in and considered, but I don't think that's the purpose of the state, beyond teaching high school kids how to wear a jimmy hat proper. People /should/ want to know better, act better, and behave responsibly."

Jan 27, 2009#269

Troll

Espy said:
A Troll said:

And it should be incredibly rare.

Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, why? If it's not a human life why should they be rare? If a woman wants to use abortion as birth control what's the problem with it? I'm not saying it's smart, but why not?

Bubble already answered pretty well, but I wanted to offer my take since it was my quote.

First of all, abortion is incredibly traumatic on the woman. Well, it can be traumatic on the would-be father as well, but usually more so for the would-be mother. It's not a pleasant process for anyone to go through, emotionally and physically. As Bubble pointed out, it's a loss of potential. Most of all, I say it should be rare because people should be smart about either abstaining from sex, or using protection.

For me, being pro-choice doesn't mean you think abortion is cool, or good, or that it's something everyone should do once. It's a last resort when the other options don't work. It's something that will be done, so it might as well be done safely.

I'm an odd thinker on this issue. I personally wouldn't never be happy with a woman I got pregnant having an abortion. If I thought we could make it work as a couple, I would try that. If she was willing to have it, and then let me raise the child on my own because she wanted nothing to do with it, I'd go that route. If neither of us could raise the child, I try to go for adoption. Obviously I wouldn't have the final say on the matter, but you can bet I would do everything I can to avoid abortion. I'm not pro-choice because I want that safety net. I'm pro-choice because I want everyone to decide for themselves, and I want it done safely if it's going to be done at all.

Jan 27, 2009#270

JCM

Espy said:
JCM said:

babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Everything.

They dont give a shit about the life (as in, the REST OF the life of the mother) Look at today's laws. The pro-lifer PETA idiots here want to force a raped girl, a woman who the father of the kid left her, a lower-income woman who must obey the husband because she cant get out, all to have kids.

Lets try this again Espy, and tell my the fuck abortionists have any right to force a woman to not abort, when they cant do-

JCM to idiotic pro-lifers said:
a)Castrate rapists, and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child, because of some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) want a raped girl to have her life destroyed further by having to raise a kid.

b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and according to the PETA-ish "murder"crowd, they should be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory.

c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child and some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) are forcing them to raise a kid on their own to please their morals.

d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise, because again- Why the fuck dont we ban sex, exercise, drinking and etc for the first months of pregnancy? Heck, if life begins at conception, have every woman post-unprotected sex be forced into a regime of a balanced diet and daily routine to improve the chances of those many fetoes after conception actually making it.

But hey, its okay to order a woman to have an unwanted child, but bad to tell her husband to stop fucking her, even though the last could pretty much kill a fetus (happened to me, twice)

If some (as in the anti-abortion crowd) want to control a woman's body, make sure the decision to have sex is HERS and only hers, because so far all I see is a bunch of hypocrites telling women they aren't allowed control over their bodies, yet sadly most often its a man who causes that unwanted pregnancy.

Make sure that NEVER will a man be able to cause an unwanted pregnancy upon a woman, and i'll agree that abortion is murder, because destroying a woman's life and plans for an orgasm should be too.

But hey, lets destroy a woman's life because of a fetus, in a society with domestic abuse, repeat rapists getting only a few years and fathers who can run off at will. :slywink:

Jan 27, 2009#271

Iaculus

JCM said:
Espy said:

JCM said:

babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Everything.

Bolded for emphasis. JCM, you're conflating those debating on this thread with outside whackjobs again...

Jan 27, 2009#272

JCM

Iaculus said:
JCM said:

Espy said:

JCM said:

babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Everything.

Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis. JCM, you're conflating those debating on this thread with outside whackjobs again...

Nope.

All the pro-lifer PETA guys here have been whining about how a fetus is life, yet not a single one has proposed laws to make it that the woman is not at a disadvantage.

Its like PETA, releasing lab rats only to become food, in a forest.

-No Pro-lifer has the right to tell a raped girl to destroy her life further by having a child that will forever remind her of the rape.
-No Pro-lifer has the right to tell a low-income family wife who has no choice but let her husband do as he pleases, because she has nowhere else to go, to become a baby-making factory.
-No Pro-lifer has the right to tell a single mother who the father ran off that she must somehow find a way to raise that kid on her own.
-and again, if a Fetus=life, prohibit sex, heavy exercise, and force a balanced diet and strict regime on the woman after unprotected sex,because shitloads of fertilized eggs and fetoes die because of this.

Go all the way, or stop babbling about the life of the fetus if nobody here gives a shit about the life of the mother. Or we can do what Amy suggested a few pages back-

Amy said:
let the mother choose what's best for her instead of relegating her existence as a uterus life support machine for a child who will be born unwanted.

So far, Amy's post has been the best solution. :slywink:

Jan 27, 2009#273

Espy

Iaculus said:
JCM said:

Espy said:

JCM said:

babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Everything.

Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis. JCM, you're conflating those debating on this thread with outside whackjobs again...

I'm totally lost. What the hell is JCM talking about? I don't think it's what I'm talking about... :Leyla:

Jan 27, 2009#274

JCM

Espy said:
JCM said:

Espy said:

JCM said:

babbling about the life of a fetus while not giving a shit about the life of the mother.

Click to expand...

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Everything.

Click to expand...

I'm totally lost.

Of course you are. All the pro-lifers care is that the fetus and mother are alive.

Not a single one of the shits care if the mother's life post-pregnancy will be a shitty one, nor the situations I posted above.

Jan 27, 2009#275

Kitty Sinatra

A Troll said:
Stuff

See, this is why you're losing that poll. We have the exact same opinion on this topic, but you're wording it all wrong.

Jan 27, 2009#276

F

Futureking

makare1 said:
I've always wondered about this, if life begins at conception why do we celebrate birthdays instead of Conception Day! or the day mom found out she was pregnant day... you know what I mean.

We could do that. But political correctness is a left wing thing. So we're fine with birthdays.

Jan 27, 2009#277

Troll

Gruebeard said:
A Troll said:

Stuff

Click to expand...

See, this is why you're losing that poll. We have the exact same opinion on this topic, but you're wording it all wrong.

Oh.

Um... let's see.

"I'm pro-choice, and you should be too. If you aren't, you're stupid. Also, I don't actually like abortions, so if you're okay with them you're stupid."

Better? I tried to cover all my bases.

Jan 27, 2009#278

Espy

JCM said:
Espy said:

JCM said:

Espy said:

Seems to me, almost every pro-lifer in here has said there should be exceptions for the life of the mother? Did I miss something?

Click to expand...

Everything.

Click to expand...

I'm totally lost.

Click to expand...

Of course you are. All the pro-lifers care is that the fetus and mother are alive.

Not a single one of the shits care if the mother's life post-pregnancy will be a shitty one, nor the situations I posted above.

Well okay then. Glad you have us all pegged.

Jan 27, 2009#279

Espy said:
Well okay then. Glad you have us all pegged.

Proof that both sides can go batpoo crazy with the "IT'S ALL BLACK OR WHITE AND EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK EXACTLY LIKE ME IS WRONG" ego trips.

(edit: that was to espy, re: JCM. espy's post was not the proof i meant. i am a little off kilter at the moment.)

Jan 27, 2009#280

Espy

ZenMonkey said:
Espy said:

Well okay then. Glad you have us all pegged.

Click to expand...

Proof that both sides can go batpoo crazy with the "IT'S ALL BLACK OR WHITE AND EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK EXACTLY LIKE ME IS WRONG" ego trips.

(edit: that was to espy, re: JCM. espy's post was not the proof i meant. i am a little off kilter at the moment.)

Of course they can. JCM was simply discussing something different than the rest of us which made the conversation... confusing at best.
It's been nice to have some simple back and forth without the flaming though. Who said we can't be civil round these parts? :aaahhh:

Jan 27, 2009#281

Espy said:
It's been nice to have some simple back and forth without the flaming though. Who said we can't be civil round these parts? :aaahhh:

Yeah, this thread has been one hell of a rollercoaster. Not to mention the resulting PMs. (Yes, I meant "private messages.")

thhp:

Jan 27, 2009#282

Espy

ZenMonkey said:
Espy said:

It's been nice to have some simple back and forth without the flaming though. Who said we can't be civil round these parts? :aaahhh:

Click to expand...

Yeah, this thread has been one hell of a rollercoaster. Not to mention the resulting PMs. (Yes, I meant "private messages.") thhp:

Jan 27, 2009#283

Shegokigo

Iaculus said:
Bubble181 said:

Amy and parnter: go for it!
Sera and partner: go for it!
Shego and partner: Run for the hills! They'll raise one like her!

:-P

Click to expand...

Don't worry, folks - I'm all over it. Just running up contracts with a couple dozen different countries' defence agencies - you'd be amazed, the price pre-made humanoid killing machines can fetch these days.

Now, how shall we split this...?

No worries Bubbles181 and sorry Iaculus, the restraining order doesn't allow any toddler within 200yrds of me/vise versa.

Jan 28, 2009#284

JCM

Espy said:
Of course they can. JCM was simply discussing something different than the rest of us which made the conversation... confusing at best.

I just got bored of the whole "fetus murder" bit, and decided to show that to blaber about saving a fetus without thinking of the situation (like today's society where a repeat rapist can still get out of prison and rape again), all pro-lifers are doing are making a poor PETA impression.

Anyway, it killed the "baby murderers!" chant, mission accomplished.

ZenMonkey said:
Espy said:

Well okay then. Glad you have us all pegged.

Click to expand...

Proof that both sides can go batpoo crazy with the "IT'S ALL BLACK OR WHITE AND EVERYONE WHO DOESN'T THINK EXACTLY LIKE ME IS WRONG" ego trips.

(edit: that was to espy, re: JCM. espy's post was not the proof i meant. i am a little off kilter at the moment.)

Amen. Its easy to call a woman who wants to abort a killer, as if she was some uterus life support system without caring about the rest of her life, and its easy for me to behave like them and call all pro-lifers idiotic chauvinists with PETA-like intellect.

Make sure that NEVER will a man be able to cause an unwanted pregnancy upon a woman, and i'll agree that abortion is murder, because destroying a woman's life and plans for an orgasm should be too. Or we can let the woman decide.

Jan 28, 2009#285

Iaculus

JCM said:
Espy said:

Of course they can. JCM was simply discussing something different than the rest of us which made the conversation... confusing at best.

Click to expand...

I just got bored of the whole "fetus murder" bit, and decided to show that to blaber about saving a fetus without thinking of the situation (like today's society where a repeat rapist can still get out of prison and rape again), all pro-lifers are doing are making a poor PETA impression.

Anyway, it killed the "baby murderers!" chant, mission accomplished.

I think that chant died down several pages ago. Hence the bewilderment.

Jan 28, 2009#286

JCM

Iaculus said:
JCM said:

Espy said:

Of course they can. JCM was simply discussing something different than the rest of us which made the conversation... confusing at best.

Click to expand...

I just got bored of the whole "fetus murder" bit, and decided to show that to blaber about saving a fetus without thinking of the situation (like today's society where a repeat rapist can still get out of prison and rape again), all pro-lifers are doing are making a poor PETA impression.

Anyway, it killed the "baby murderers!" chant, mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

I think that chant died down several pages ago.

You must have been reading the wrong thread, up to last page, people were still debating "murder". Hence my bewilderment. :slywink:

Jan 28, 2009#287

Espy

JCM said:
Iaculus said:

JCM said:

Espy said:

Of course they can. JCM was simply discussing something different than the rest of us which made the conversation... confusing at best.

Click to expand...

I just got bored of the whole "fetus murder" bit, and decided to show that to blaber about saving a fetus without thinking of the situation (like today's society where a repeat rapist can still get out of prison and rape again), all pro-lifers are doing are making a poor PETA impression.

Anyway, it killed the "baby murderers!" chant, mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

I think that chant died down several pages ago.

Click to expand...

You must have been reading the wrong thread, up to last page, people were still debating "murder". Hence my bewilderment. :slywink:

You confuse debating the issue of "murder" rationally with something else apparently. Despite you not liking it being a central issues to the bigger issue it still is to many, and it's going to come up in a thread on the subject. It doesn't mean you can't say "Hay guys, I would prefer we talked about the discussion on 'this' level rather than the 'murder' level" but what you can't do is just paint everyone as mother-hating murder chanting bigots of a sort just because they want to discuss something different than you do, hell half the people discussing it are on your side.
Or maybe you can. :aaahhh:

Anyway, the discussion is getting a little to "meta" now, which while fun, really doesn't lend itself to continuing the debate. Anyone wanna get us back on track or are we done here? Agree to disagree sort of thing?

Jan 28, 2009#288

Krisken

I think that both sides of this issue need to focus on the things they agree on rather than the things they disagree on first. That way neither side feels they are compromising their values or beliefs. Of course, if you want to argue, that's cool too.

Jan 28, 2009#289

JCM

True Krisken, but then as usual, every therad on abortion the issue is taken away from what it is, the right of a woman, by the religious nuts/PETA-like moral crowd, to a debate on murder.

Sadly, the internet is like this.

Espy said:
JCM said:

Iaculus said:

JCM said:

I just got bored of the whole "fetus murder" bit, and decided to show that to blaber about saving a fetus without thinking of the situation (like today's society where a repeat rapist can still get out of prison and rape again), all pro-lifers are doing are making a poor PETA impression.

Anyway, it killed the "baby murderers!" chant, mission accomplished.

Click to expand...

I think that chant died down several pages ago.

Click to expand...

You must have been reading the wrong thread, up to last page, people were still debating "murder". Hence my bewilderment. :slywink:

Click to expand...

You confuse debating the issue of "murder" rationally with something else apparently.

For a man in a society like today which leaves raped women and single moms to raise kids alone to call it murder, or even discuss it, is utterly idiotic.

Heck, I can have a "rational" discussion on whether I am god, but it would be just as stupid, and as far as the selfish idiots who dont give a shit about women blabber about " murder", I´ll be here to call them like they are.

Jan 28, 2009#290

zero

Now see Troll? That's how you do it.

Jan 28, 2009#291

Espy

Krisken said:
I think that both sides of this issue need to focus on the things they agree on rather than the things they disagree on first. That way neither side feels they are compromising their values or beliefs. Of course, if you want to argue, that's cool too.

I think there has been some of that, what was interesting and kind of exciting to see was people saying, "Hey, I don't understand where your side is coming from: Explain it to me so I understand it and help me see where we actually differ". We need more of that rather than simply throwing everyone who doesn't agree with you under the bus with ad hominem, petty generalizations and angry outbursts.

Jan 28, 2009#292

ElJuski

Espy said:
Krisken said:

I think that both sides of this issue need to focus on the things they agree on rather than the things they disagree on first. That way neither side feels they are compromising their values or beliefs. Of course, if you want to argue, that's cool too.

Click to expand...

I think there has been some of that, what was interesting and kind of exciting to see was people saying, "Hey, I don't understand where your side is coming from: Explain it to me so I understand it and help me see where we actually differ". We need more of that rather than simply throwing everyone who doesn't agree with you under the bus with ad hominem, petty generalizations and angry outbursts.

Exactly. While I still don't completely agree with you, atleast I can see where you are coming from. And that works so much better than frothing at the mouth and demanding things NAU NAU NAU NAU NAU!

Jan 28, 2009#293

Espy

ElJuski said:
Espy said:

Krisken said:

I think that both sides of this issue need to focus on the things they agree on rather than the things they disagree on first. That way neither side feels they are compromising their values or beliefs. Of course, if you want to argue, that's cool too.

Click to expand...

I think there has been some of that, what was interesting and kind of exciting to see was people saying, "Hey, I don't understand where your side is coming from: Explain it to me so I understand it and help me see where we actually differ". We need more of that rather than simply throwing everyone who doesn't agree with you under the bus with ad hominem, petty generalizations and angry outbursts.

Click to expand...

Exactly. While I still don't completely agree with you, atleast I can see where you are coming from. And that works so much better than frothing at the mouth and demanding things NAU NAU NAU NAU NAU!

This is getting to be one big love in where we all actually listen to each other.
And we can't have that. :finger:

Jan 28, 2009#294

ElJuski

But my parents are already downnnnnnnn

Jan 28, 2009#295

A

Amy old

You know? I'm actually sick of explaining "my side" so that "the other side" will understand it. Unless you're a frakking bonobo I think you can read and figure out what's being said.

I could compromise and say I'd be willing to let every unwanted child be born if the people who demand they be born take them home with them. Prove that you want that child, because clearly if a mother gives birth to a baby she'd rather abort no amount of legislation is going to make her want the child, and that child will suffer for it.

Yes, that child will be alive, but it will most likely live through a childhood unloved and unwanted, because again, pro lifers aren't doing their part to adopt every unwanted child born into this world. You want that child to live? Good, prove it by adopting a child and giving it a life worth living. Because otherwise, all you're doing is
encouraging the suffering of unwanted kids.

Pro life? prove it. Adopt a child, and ensure no child EVER feels unwanted. Can't do that? Let a woman make a decision for her life, and prevent suffering for unwanted children.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html

Jan 28, 2009#296

zero

Again, easy on the "unwanted children". I've known unwanted children, beaten, raped and abandoned by their parents... If you went to one of them, pulled a .38 on their face and said "Here kid, let me put you out of your misery", they would run away screaming for their lives.

Jan 28, 2009#297

ElJuski

>.< well, I can't speak for everyone.

Jan 28, 2009#298

A

Amy old

zero said:
Again, easy on the "unwanted children". I've known unwanted children, beaten, raped and abandoned by their parents... If you went to one of them, pulled a .38 on their face and said "Here kid, let me put you out of your misery", they would run away screaming for their lives.

Hyperbole much? Easy on them? Is that even an argument? How many of these unwanted kids did you take into your home and adopt? Any? One?

Jan 28, 2009#299

zero

Amy said:
zero said:

Again, easy on the "unwanted children". I've known unwanted children, beaten, raped and abandoned by their parents... If you went to one of them, pulled a .38 on their face and said "Here kid, let me put you out of your misery", they would run away screaming for their lives.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole much? Easy on them? Is that even an argument? How many of these unwanted kids did you take into your home and adopt? Any? One?

Nope, never adopted (single guy getting an adoption in Brazil is highly unlikely, anyway), just did voluntary work with them (Homeless children living on a government shelter). Amazingly merry children, given the circumstances.

I'm pointing that the argument of "to be an unwanted children is such a terrible thing that it is better to not live at all" is not necessarily true.

Jan 28, 2009#300

A

Amy old

Yeah, and you're missing my point, the point being that there are hundreds of thousands of kids we already can't adequately take care of living and breathing on this earth, (you acknowledge that you can't take care of even one,) but you want to stop women from making sure more aren't brought into this world to suffer? Murder or not, there aren't enough people who want to adequately raise and care for the children that ARE here, and you want to add more to that problem?

Jan 28, 2009#301

Kitty Sinatra

I don't think there is that sort of problem. I think even a shitty life is better than no life.

Jan 28, 2009#302

A

Amy old

Gruebeard said:
I don't think there is that sort of problem. I think even a shitty life is better than no life.

Great. Go tell that to the kids who are living that shitty life. " Hey, kids at least you aren't DEAD!" I'm sure they'll feel loads better about being unwanted.

Or you know, console yourself that you have kept to your morals, nevermind that it's some else's problem. Why should your support for impeding on the choices a woman makes about her own body, (in essence, reducing her to a uterus life support system) affect you at all?

"Fuck, that's wrong, but I'm just pointing that out, don't expect me to you know, help out or anything."

Yeah

Jan 28, 2009#303

Kitty Sinatra

Amy said:
Gruebeard said:

I don't think there is that sort of problem. I think even a shitty life is better than no life.

Click to expand...

Great. Go tell that to the kids who are living that shitty life. " Hey, kids at least you aren't DEAD!"

Hey me! At least I'm not dead.

Okay, one down approximately 6 billion to go. This is gonna be a long day. :bush:

Jan 28, 2009#304

A

Amy old

So you're saying you're an unwanted child raised through state foster care?

Jan 28, 2009#305

Iaculus

Gruebeard said:
I don't think there is that sort of problem. I think even a shitty life is better than no life.

Having a whole bunch of kids who the system can't really support, though, can be very damaging for a society. There's some give, but it's very finite.

Remember I mentioned Ceaucescu-era Romania earlier in the thread?

Jan 28, 2009#306

zero

Amy said:
Yeah, and you're missing my point,

Hm, let's see about that...

Amy said:
the point being that there are hundreds of thousands of kids we already can't adequately take care of living and breathing on this earth, (you acknowledge that you can't take care of even one,)

Oh, have I? I'm unsure of that. Anyway, for your argument's sake, I'll go on with it...

Amy said:
but you want to stop women from making sure more aren't brought into this world to suffer?

Ah? Excuse me? Do I? How so? Have I claimed to be against contraceptives? Heck, have I claimed to be against ABORTION?

Amy said:
Murder or not (...)

Ah! I understand your problem now... you are OBVIOUSLY not reading my posts on this thread... Fair enough, I don't claim to be a particularly interesting witter, but here's an advice: It helps a lot to read a person's wittings if you want to infer his opinions...

Amy said:
(..)there aren't enough people who want to adequately raise and care for the children that ARE here, and you want to add more to that problem?

Again, do I? But I'm wondering... do you think the children who weren't "adequately raised" after your perceptions would be better dead? Or an even easier question, forget about them... do you think WE would be better without those "inadequately raised" children? As I said, I've worked with unwanted children, and I can't agree with that...

Jan 28, 2009#307

A

Amy old

I've read your posts, and aside from taking a Big Brother right-think "easy on the ____'s" stance you havent really been clear on anything but the criminalization of induced abortion. (not that THAT implies anything, oh no) And you made a sketchy generalization and got bitchy at me when I asked for proof.

Then you took issue with the bonobo post. I didn't bring the argument to your table.

Don't presume that I was arguing your nonpoints specifically, you were just the foil for the questions I pose to those who support ya know, making abortion illegal. If that's not your position man up and say so. State your point, argue your point, and try prove it, or fuck off.

Jan 28, 2009#308

lafftaff

Time to get my hands dirty...

When it comes to the actual funding I'm generally against federal funding for international groups. That money could be spent at home. But I'm sure there's more to it than I understand.

When it comes to abortion itself I'm Pro-Choice. That simply means I believe it's a women's body and it's her right and choice of what to do to it

To me, it's not so much the issue of murder but the issue of when does life "begin". The fact is is that abortion is destroying something that has the potential to be a living human being. At what stage does abortion really become murder? In my head it's abortions up to the end of the 4th month. I have no real basis for that, I arbitrarily chose it. How do you define the begnning of life?

Abortion shouldn't be limited to certain cases. Why should some people get it and others not? "She was raped, so abortion for her.You may not be able to support the child in any way, but hey, you had sex so you have to face the consequences." People are quick to judge but they don't understand what it's like to be that scared, lonely woman. There are so many reasons: no father, unaffordable, not ready, wasn't planned, you're already rasing your 17 yr. olds kid and you can't afford to raise the child of your now pregnant 14 yr. old. Unless the Pro-Lifers are going to willfully raise or help support these unwanted children, they need to stay out of it.

It's hard to argue the "aren't you glad you're alive point." They're happy now that they're alive, but if they were aborted it wouldn't matter. They wouldn't exist. I enjoy my life, but if had been aborted then oh well. Maybe my mother would've gone on to have an even better child. Who knows? It's hard to argue something after the fact.

Sorry if this is a little rambling, it's just my two cents.

Jan 28, 2009#309

A

Amy old

SeraRelm said:
Amy said:

Thankfully, US adoption laws are slowly allowing gay couples the right to adopt. Which is what my partner and I will be doing, hopefully next year.

Click to expand...

Hoping for the same, eventually. :|

Good news on that front, but not talking about it, (for the totally rational fear of jinxing it)

related but not, bureaucrats suck

~edited to add that any replies will most likely not responded to today as I must get going and stop dicking around waiting for slow ass typists to reply. <--- you take offense at that, it means you're a slow ass typist.

Jan 28, 2009#310

zero

Amy said:
I've read your posts, and aside from taking a Big Brother right-think "easy on the ____'s" stance you havent really been clear on anything but the criminalization of induced abortion. (not that THAT implies anything, oh no)

Well, people WERE discussing semantics... If you think that's pointless, ok, feel free to ignore it.

Amy said:
And you made a sketchy generalization and got bitchy at me when I asked for proof.

Hm, you really think it is a sketchy generalization to say that most people would not give up their life... so you ARE "for real" :eek:

My excuses in this case, I mistook you for some troll (but heck, I must say it was quite an easy mistake to make...). Well, I must direct you to my answer to JCM's post... particularly...

Zero said:
Suicide rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicide_rates_map.svg
Legalization of induced abortion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abort ... Legend.png

When I point that suicide rates tend to be HIGHER on countries with abortion. Again (and sadly this seems to be a necessary precaution on this thread), I do NOT claim any causal nexus between those two factors... but that surely do not endorse the "unwanted children would rather be dead" thesis.

Amy said:
Then you took issue with the bonobo post. I didn't bring the argument to your table.

And I never claimed you did! So what? I can't offer you a different view from yours?

Amy said:
Don't presume that I was arguing your nonpoints specifically, you were just the foil for the questions I pose to those who support ya know, making abortion illegal.

Again, I never supposed you were disagreeing with me... See Amy, what's happened is that I disagreed with you... It happens, nothing personal...

Amy said:
If that's not your position man up and say so. State your point, argue your point, and try prove it, or fuck off.

Well Amy, not that I really feel compelled by your nice "...or fuck off", nor I think you have been very successful on providing "proof" for your points, but my position, (thanks for asking) is stated right in my first post... may I quote it? Allow me to:

Zero said:
(...)I had no answer back then... I still don't...

I should perhaps expand it a bit...

First of all, a bit of a disclaimer... I AM a male, no uterus here, absolutely no capacity to bear children. Also, I AM Catholic, pope über alles and stuff... If any of those changes your mind about being interested on my position on abortion, again, feel free to skip the remaining of the post. If you keep reading, I promise I will try my best to factor out my religion (which is quite difficult) and my gender (almost impossible, alas, but as I pointed out previously, is not like us guys have absolutely no saying in this matter... more on that latter).

To forbid by force a woman to have an abortion is effectively to enslave such woman's body for nine months, which is a terrible, awful, abominable think to do.
The question of legalizing abortion for me is whether this is more or less terrible than terminating the life of the fetus.
That's for me a very difficult question. I tend to have a very deep reverence for life, even the incipient life of a fetus (don't assume this is catholic stuff, actually, the glorification of martyrdom shows that life is not above all for the catholic religion), so I tend to lean a bit on the side of "yes, to unwillingly bear a children for nine months it is an awful sacrifice, but if the price is a fetus life, then so be it" (noting that I, as a male, will NEVER be able to make such sacrifice).

Of course, the question is far from being settled to me. I DO think there are exceptions.

For instance, if the mother's life is in risk, then certainly my aversion to abortion in order to protect life is very weakened, though from a purely pragmatical biological perspective, it makes more sense to protect the children's life than the mother's... But then, to force someone to put their life at risk their life for an unwanted children is certainly too much, and I cannot be against abortion in this case.

Also, in case of rape, while the fetus life life shouldn't be worth less than any other fetus, I don't think a woman should be forced to bear the children of such awful act. (There's another huge debate here... If the lust of a rapist is derived from its biological imperative to reproduce, it makes a sense to cut such imperative... but that would lead to the conclusion that a rape fetus life is worth less... I really really really don't want to go there...).

As for incest, unless you are really concerned with the genetic load of the human race (anyone who raised race dogs knows that incest breeds are crap, but then again, that would lead us to the touchy question of some lives being worth less), I don't see why that should be an exception (but it is on many countries).

So, to summarize, except for a few exceptions, if a woman has consensual sex, and have a child as a fruit of such relation, I DO think they should be forced (emphasis to show I'm aware of how serious this is) to carry the child for nine months. Don't want the child after? Give it to adoption, place it under government foster. Odds are the child won't have a wonderful life, but also, odds are the child will be grateful for it.

Again, I'm a guy, so it feels wrong to ask someone to do a sacrifice I will never be able to do. I completely agree with fathers who refuse to provide for their child to be sent to jail (indeed, Brazilian law provides exactly this... just don't expect it to be fully applied on the most miserable parts of the country...), but of course, this is nowhere near the same of having an unwanted being growing in your womb. I've been on the "heck, just let the women decide" side for a long time, until someone asked me what would I do if a woman pregnant with my child wanted to have an abortion. That's perhaps a bit egoistical, I should probably be concerned with all children, not just an hypothetical mine, but that's what got me thinking that perhaps I should have some legal way to enforce such woman to bear my child until birth... (also that I should get more serious with contraception)... Yes, it is unfair that woman have to bear the bulk of the responsibility for a child's life, I defend firmly state-sponsored work licenses for pregnant women, I think the father should be forced (under menace of prison) to care for the woman until the child is born (and of course, to care for the children afterwards), but that's about what men are able to do... To carry the child on the womb is on the woman...

Anyway... that's about my opinion... A few notes... I don't think abortion should be equated to "murder"... it is the termination of a fetus life, but it is also the expression of a woman's will over her own body.

Also, (in case you haven't noticed) I firmly refute the argument of "it is better to kill the child in the womb than let it live in this world of pain"-like arguments... Yes, you do have the occasional suicidal, very sad, but the vast majority of the born people, even those who live in misery, want to keep living.

Not to mention the "abortion is population management" argument. Nativity control is a VERY controversial theme (yes, even from the economics point of view), but there are much more effective ways to implement it.

Where you can get me:

- Is a fetus life so important? The life of a barely conscious being is enough to enslave a woman for nine months? I'm sensible to that kind of argument, and you won't see me easily refuting those here... So far, I do feel that yes, it is more terrible to kill the fetus than enslave the woman... but I admit it is a subjective position... not backed by direct facts nor logic (then again, I'm thinking you won't provide me direct facts to contradict it...)

- Meh, you're a guy, who are you to say to woman what they're supposed to do? That one also is a touchy one, though I think it is a bit unfair... what if the arguments above were presented by a woman (because I do know a few women who think like I do)? As I said, at least in the case when I'm the father, I should have a saying on the child's life or death... Of course, if you want to dismiss my opinions because of my gender, please, be my guest...

To end it, I do understand many on the legalization field. I won't call "omg you murderer" on a woman who had an abortion... In fact, I DO know woman who aborted, heck, I personally know Medics who (illegally!) performed abortions. I would never denounce them to the justice, nor do I personally condemn them. Despite what you've been lead to believe, there IS place for middle ground on this issue.

Jan 28, 2009#311

Iaculus

Again, have you considered the externalities? The social cost of an unwanted child can get pretty high, and the systems in place for dealing with that sort of thing never have quite as much funding as one might wish.

Jan 28, 2009#312

zero

Iaculus said:
Again, have you considered the externalities? The social cost of an unwanted child can get pretty high, and the systems in place for dealing with that sort of thing never have quite as much funding as one might wish.

I'm not sure if I follow... You claim that a society that kills every unwanted children would have a more prosper economy? Well, I say it is very likely (one should consider of course the impact of that on the age structure, but let's just presume such society would compensate with more "wanted" children), not to mention a possible reduction on crime, on illiteracy and all, but come on... Haven't you seen me willing to accept the enslavement of a woman's body for nine months? For me the economic aspect is very much in second place (and yes, I am NOT unaware of the possible lives saved through better standards of living, less crime, etc.).

To clarify... I believe you are against abortion because of the brutal suppression on a woman freedom, and that I can respect. If you think "externalities" such as the cost of systems that deal with unwanted children are more relevant factors, then we have a disagreement.

Jan 28, 2009#313

tegid

All right... Just thought I would give my two cents on the issue. I'm tired and about to get into bed, so I read only the first three pages (dunno if what I say has already been said) and my post might not make any sense at all. I'll come back tomorrow and read the whole thread.

I think an interesteresting thing to reflect upon is the perceived seriousness of abortions, more than the possible penalties, or if it is allowed.
Now, I don't think this is a black and white matter, and of course a baby that is about to be born is as good a child as one already born. But, what about 2 months old fetuses? Does a mother who gets a natural abortion as sad as if her newborn child died? Of course not! As the fetus develops, it is percieved as a much worse thing if it dies. Why shouldn't law and society regard it the same way?

Of course, I don't know how your laws work... I think abortions are legal up to an amount (unknown to me) of time after the conception? Well then, if my argument made any sense, that's allright. The thing to discuss here is the amount of time.

Don't get me wrong, I understand ending a life is wrong, even more so if it is a potential human being. But it has degrees and is not as bad. Maybe it should be punished... or maybe not. Do people get in prison for killing cats? or plants? (Ohgoddon'tgetangry remember I don't know what I'm saying!) (And of course I don't mean it's the same thing! But it has some similarity...)

Jan 28, 2009#314

A

Amy old

Odds are the child won't have a wonderful life, but also, odds are the child will be grateful for it.

I wouldn't actually have a problem with your arguments if you had some facts to back them up instead of laying down generalities.

The point of giving up a child to welfare or foster care and everything will be fine is also hard to prove, because not every country has adequate foster care, or any state welfare at all.

And get off your ass about "woe is me, imma guy, so I can't make that sacrifice." Bullshit you can't. Adopt. You say it might be hard in brazil for a single guy, well guess what, it's hard everywhere, it still happens. If a lesbian couple in America can do it when there are many laws against such a thing, then there's no reason you "can't" either, and if you're going to lay down some bullshit about the sanctity of life, get off your ass, and prove it.

I'm all down with enslaving as long as those who oppose abortion be forced to adopt the children born that would otherwise be aborted.

Jan 28, 2009#315

tegid said:
Does a mother who gets a natural abortion as sad as if her newborn child died? Of course not!

How many women who have had miscarriages have you spoken with about this?

Jan 28, 2009#316

zero

Amy said:
Odds are the child won't have a wonderful life, but also, odds are the child will be grateful for it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually have a problem with your arguments if you had some facts to back them up instead of laying down generalities.

Ok, you are trying really hard to ignore the post I made about lower suicide rates where abortion is illegal, aren't you? Ok, so be it...

Jan 28, 2009#317

A

Amy old

zero said:
Amy said:

Odds are the child won't have a wonderful life, but also, odds are the child will be grateful for it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't actually have a problem with your arguments if you had some facts to back them up instead of laying down generalities.

Click to expand...

Ok, you are trying really hard to ignore the post I made about lower suicide rates where abortion is illegal, aren't you? Ok, so be it...

one sketchy link to one generalization out of how many have you posted in the thread? Also, funny how you still aren't answering the whole put your money where your mouth is and adopt point either.

Jan 28, 2009#318

JONJONAUG

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html

Uh...all that article tells me is that "legalized abortion means less children".

As for your questions Amy (and I know you've probably foe'd me because you think I'm a misogynist twat for thinking that abortion is morally wrong and that the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months), but on the off-chance that you haven't), I would adopt an unwanted child. I'm adopted myself through the public foster care system, and I can tell you right now that in my experience the system works. I have two other biological siblings. My younger sister was adopted by my parents (...god that sentence is hard to put into proper context, "my sister is also my biological sister" reads horribly...), and an older brother who lives with a family in Massachusetts. If anything, all that article does is convince me that there are a lot more children who get aborted instead of being put into a system that actually DOES work (in the United States anyway, I can't account for Brazil or other countries, but the article you posted solely applies to the United States).

I can't say I've ever experienced "suffering" under the system, since it worked perfectly for me. However, I really would prefer being alive than being killed before I have the chance to be born. I know plenty of adopted children personally (my cousin is an unwanted female child from China), and while some are happier than others, all of them are content to enough of an extent that I would bet money that they would prefer being alive than never being born.

Jan 28, 2009#319

JONJONAUG said:
the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months

...holy FUCK.

Jan 28, 2009#320

ElJuski

ZenMonkey said:
JONJONAUG said:

the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months

Click to expand...

...holy FUCK.

And this is why the debate goes on and on and on. Instead of trying to reach consensus people have too much fun slinging shit and half-truths at each other. You gotta stop being rabidly angry and ignorant before you can start talking rationale and making a legal consensus.

Jan 28, 2009#321

JONJONAUG

ZenMonkey said:
JONJONAUG said:

the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months

Click to expand...

...holy FUCK.

What? Fetus growth is something that comes in the technical specification sheet of females. I know it's not exactly a PC way of putting it, but there's not many other ways to say that women housing a fetus while it grows isn't unnatural. What I'm saying is right to life>emotional impact.

Jan 28, 2009#322

zero

Amy said:
one sketchy link to one generalization out of how many have you posted in the thread?

Hm... how many "generalizations" (sic) have I provided besides "most people want to live"? (An statement on which I'm quite surprised to be confronted)

Amy said:
Also, funny how you still aren't answering the whole put your money where your mouth is and adopt point either.

Oh, right! That crushing argument! "If you don't adopt, you have no saying on abortion!". Well Amy, yes, I never adopted any child, I don't think of myself of father material, the best I do on this issue is voluntary work with abandoned children raised by a government foster lair (and money I donate for a private lair on H.I.V. infected children... how "unwanted" do you think THOSE are?). I don't think those actions give me ANY particular notoriety to argue against or for abortion (but I'm sure on that we agree). But hey, as I said, if by any reason you think any of my characteristics (I must admit my money was on the "catholic guy") disqualify my position despite its arguments, by all means, just skip my post. But it is interesting that you keep pressing on that issue... Remember when I said I know women who agree with me? Well, would it surprise you that one of those really adopted a child? (you shouldn't... many women who adopt are against abortion) What if that post came from her?

So, to say it AGAIN, if you want to question any of my arguments, I'll gladly clarify you on them, or (who knows?) maybe even be convinced by you. If you want to dismiss them because of what I am... I'll have nothing to say on it (just perhaps the fact that YOU asked my opinion on that in the first place...).

Jan 28, 2009#323

A

Amy old

Yay for her, zero, but boo for you for not having the balls to put your life into service for your beliefs. You're gee I'm not father materiel is a fucking empty cop out when you insist that women who aren't mother material be forced to give birth, and that the resulting child just face the odds of a crapshoot which you won't even inconvenience yourself with to improve the odds.

Props to your friend for doing what you cant though, Her, I respect, even though I disagree.

You on the other hand, sit on your high unaffected horse and spout how women must sacrifice for the good of the child while you don't do shit about it

Jan 28, 2009#324

Krisken

Amy said:
And people say we need to set aside our differences and unite. Ha!

I still say it. Things were calming down until ya came in here and said this:

Amy said:
You know? I'm actually sick of explaining "my side" so that "the other side" will understand it. Unless you're a frakking bonobo I think you can read and figure out what's being said.

Etc. I'm not trying to attack you, just pointing out that there are very few here who made an effort to be neutral and understanding of the opposing position.

And yes, JONJONAUG, what you said was misogynistic. In fact, it churned my stomach a little bit.

As I said earlier, we can have a civil, understanding conversation about an issue that is charged, but for the most part we choose not to. That's ok too. Carry on. I'll just :popcorn:

for now.

Jan 28, 2009#325

A

Amy old

krisken, the "issue" is older than both you and I and has been around a long time. People can understand both sides of it without being neutral. Anyone who doesn't understand the issues at stake can get off their ass and go read up about it in their local library

Well fuck them if they are too lazy. I'm done with respecting the side that wants to forcibly limit what I can and cannot do with my body while they face no consequences for such imposition. I am absolutely fine with pro lifers making their points if they share the burden of the consequences, which men like zero do not.

It seems your idea of civility is that no one really get passionate about disagreements. Sorry but I'm not going to oblige you.

Jan 28, 2009#326

zero

Amy said:
And people say we need to set aside our differences and unite. Ha!

Not sure on who this is directed, but as I'm "not without error", I'll answer it

It is nothing personal Amy, I just disagree with the "unwanted children are so miserable they would be better off dead" argument. Now, I admit it, I DID cross the line with you with my "are you for real?" when you asked proof for the "vast majority people want to keep living" argument, I mistook you from some Troll. But I have recognized my error, and apologized for it (apologies that I reinstate here)

Be sure I don't think any ill of you for you being pro-abortion.

Amy said:
Yay for her, zero, but boo for you for not having the balls to put your life into service for your beliefs. You're gee I'm not father materiel is a fucking empty cop out when you insist that women who aren't mother material be forced to give birth, and that the resulting child just face the odds of a crapshoot which you won't even inconvenience yourself with to improve the odds.

Ah! But wait a second... I firmly defend I should be FORCED to take care of any woman I impregnate, and surely, to take care of any child I conceive... yes, under threat of severe penalty (certainly more severe than what should be applied to a woman who have an abortion). Again, yes, it is impossible for me to carry an unborn child.

Amy said:
Props to your friend for doing what you cant though, Her, I respect, even though I disagree.

Nice! She and her husband are really wonderful people, the kid could not ask for better... But notice... Her arguments aren't different from mine...

Amy said:
You on the other hand, sit on your high unaffected horse and spout how women must sacrifice for the good of the child while you don't do shit about it

Perhaps I don't do shit, perhaps I do... but again... If you have any issue with my arguments, I'm very much willing to discuss them with you...
...If you have issues with ME, well then I'm sorry... can't really help on that.

Jan 28, 2009#327

zero said:
Be sure I don't think any ill of you for you being pro-abortion.

Be sure you know the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice."

Jan 28, 2009#328

Troll

JONJONAUG said:
ZenMonkey said:

JONJONAUG said:

the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months

Click to expand...

...holy FUCK.

Click to expand...

What? Fetus growth is something that comes in the technical specification sheet of females. I know it's not exactly a PC way of putting it, but there's not many other ways to say that women housing a fetus while it grows isn't unnatural. What I'm saying is right to life>emotional impact.

You still don't seem to understand the difference between "being PC" and "not being a giant misogynistic douchbag." World of difference there, really, yet you can't seem to grasp how amazingly ignorant and offensive that comment was.

Jan 28, 2009#329

zero

ZenMonkey said:
zero said:

Be sure I don't think any ill of you for you being pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Be sure you know the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice."

You surely got me on that one ZenMonkey... yes, of course, nobody sane is "pro-abortion".

So, to rephrase it:
Amy, I don't think any ill of you for you being against criminalization of induced abortion. (yes, it takes more words to say it).

Jan 28, 2009#330

zero said:
(yes, it takes more words to say it).

And saying what you really mean is worth it, so thanks for that. :thumbsup:

Jan 28, 2009#331

A

Amy old

zero said:
[
Ah! But wait a second... I firmly defend I should be FORCED to take care of any woman I impregnate, and surely, to take care of any child I conceive... yes, under threat of severe penalty (certainly more severe than what should be applied to a woman who have an abortion). Again, yes, it is impossible for me to carry an unborn child.

If you believe abortion is wrong, since you demand that woman carry it instead of aborting it then the burden of raising the child should be yours. Equivalent exchange, the woman's life is affected, and since you support pro life, your life should be affected too, regardless of whether or not you impregnated the woman. Sound unfair? No more I would say, than the unfairness of being relegated to carry and birth a child you did not want.

Jan 28, 2009#332

Krisken

Amy said:
It seems your idea of civility is that no one really get passionate about disagreements. Sorry but I'm not going to oblige you.

Now you're making assumptions about what I think or what my ideas are. If you want to argue, that's cool. I will just sit on the sidelines and watch. If someone wants to focus on the common ground and them work our way to the differences, then I'll be in. Hell, it might surprise you that I'm a staunch supporter of abortion, contraceptives, and womens rights. My wife and I go to planned parenthood for the NuvaRing.

I'm passionate about all the things I believe, think, or feel. I'm still going to be careful about the tone I use and do my best to understand the other position, despite those who continue to be obstinate and refuse to meet me halfway or even take part in a serious discussion. I just have no interest in participating in what will devolve into name calling and cause others to just dig their heels in.

Jan 28, 2009#333

A

Amy old

Fuck you krisken, get off the fucking internet and carry your cross where someone gives a fuck that you're soooo noble. Whole Foods, maybe. Douche.

Seriously though, if you can't argue your point anywhere except in safe sterile British tea rooms over some crumpets and Earl Grey, then stop whining that no one respects your points

Jan 28, 2009#334

JCM

Amen.

zero said:
Blabla troll

:eyeroll:

zero said:
Again, easy on the "unwanted children". I've known unwanted children, beaten, raped and abandoned by their parents... If you went to one of them, pulled a .38 on their face and said "Here kid, let me put you out of your misery", they would run away screaming for their lives.

Heh, and I know many who'd do it,and have attempted to do so.

But nice to see how the machists still blabber about the kid.Hey, let the raped mother live with the trauma, and raise a kid on her own, so some guys dont feel bad that a fetus died.

Amy said:
You know? I'm actually sick of explaining "my side" so that "the other side" will understand it. Unless you're a frakking bonobo I think you can read and figure out what's being said.

I could compromise and say I'd be willing to let every unwanted child be born if the people who demand they be born take them home with them. Prove that you want that child, because clearly if a mother gives birth to a baby she'd rather abort no amount of legislation is going to make her want the child, and that child will suffer for it.

Yes, that child will be alive, but it will most likely live through a childhood unloved and unwanted, because again, pro lifers aren't doing their part to adopt every unwanted child born into this world. You want that child to live? Good, prove it by adopting a child and giving it a life worth living. Because otherwise, all you're doing is
encouraging the suffering of unwanted kids.

Pro life? prove it. Adopt a child, and ensure no child EVER feels unwanted. Can't do that? Let a woman make a decision for her life, and prevent suffering for unwanted children.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3402502.html

I can bet not a single dipshit here wanting to control a woman's body will ever a dopt a kid.

Just like they dont give a shit about single mothers abandoned by the father of the child, or raped women, they dont give a shit about the kids.

They just want to feel good that their little church-taught morals are satisfied.

I've assumed responsibility and care for my gf's kid (with a former fiance, not mine), and am taking care of three half-brothers from my mother's failed marriages. Amy's adopting.

What have the religious chauvinists done so far, but shown they care more about a fetus than the rest of a life of a woman, who for them are just glorified uterus life supports?

Jan 28, 2009#335

Krisken

Amy said:
Fuck you krisken, get off the fucking internet and carry your cross where someone gives a fuck that you're soooo noble. Whole Foods, maybe. Douche.

Seriously though, if you can't argue your point anywhere except in safe sterile British tea rooms over some crumpets and Earl Grey, then stop whining that no one respects your points

Ok, the douche thing made me chuckle.

Have fun

thhp:

Jan 28, 2009#336

JCM

ZenMonkey said:
zero said:

Be sure I don't think any ill of you for you being pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Be sure you know the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice."

This.

Funnily, why do people to call themselves "pro-lifers" when they prefer to save a fetus and destroy the life of abandoned single mothers and raped women?

Jan 28, 2009#337

A

Amy old

@krisken
Totally thought it would have been the whole foods.

Jan 28, 2009#338

Troll

Amy said:
@krisken
Totally thought it would have been the whole foods.

Heh, for what's it's worth that's the part *I* laughed at.

Jan 28, 2009#339

JCM said:
Funnily, why do people to call themselves "pro-lifers" when they prefer to save a fetus and destroy the life of abandoned single mothers and raped women?

Well, one of them recently wanted to discuss the nomenclature issue with me in PMs, and my position on the matter (which was entirely my own perspective, stated as such, and not based on generalizations or even statistics) was decried as "bald-faced lies," so I don't think I'll bother with that discussion anymore.

Jan 28, 2009#340

Krisken

Amy said:
@krisken
Totally thought it would have been the whole foods.

Probably should have been, but I've never been there. I giggled at the name calling part in my post and then being called a douche in yours.

Never liked Earl Grey Tea though. Prefer chai.

Jan 28, 2009#341

zero

Amy said:
If you believe abortion is wrong, since you demand that woman carry it instead of aborting it then the burden of raising the child should be yours. Equivalent exchange, the woman's life is affected, and since you support pro life, your life should be affected too (...)

But of course, if the mother of my child don't want to have it, but bear it for nine months, I'll assume the child alone, no questions on that...

Amy said:
(...)regardless of whether or not you impregnated the woman. Sound unfair? No more I would say, than the unfairness of being relegated to carry and birth a child you did not want.

Geez Amy, to read you here, it almost seems like I'm some kind of "pro-lifer" religious zealot... As I said it, I had friends who had abortions... I never condemned them, and know what? I never EVEN asked them to not do it! I won't say that I understand perfectly the woman condition (now THAT would put fire on this thread), but I can grasp how precious one's will over his own body is.

Heck, wanna get me "by the balls"? Just ask me "Oh yeah? And what if both parents agree with the abortion?" but I somehow feel you don't think the father has any saying on this issue...

Jan 28, 2009#342

JCM

ZenMonkey said:
JCM said:

Funnily, why do people to call themselves "pro-lifers" when they prefer to save a fetus and destroy the life of abandoned single mothers and raped women?

Click to expand...

Well, one of them recently wanted to discuss the nomenclature issue with me in PMs, and my position on the matter (which was entirely my own perspective, stated as such, and not based on generalizations or even statistics) was decried as "bald-faced lies," so I don't think I'll bother with that discussion anymore.

*ouch*

Jan 28, 2009#343

zero

JCM said:
ZenMonkey said:

zero said:

Be sure I don't think any ill of you for you being pro-abortion.

Click to expand...

Be sure you know the difference between "pro-abortion" and "pro-choice."

Click to expand...

This.

Funnily, why do people to call themselves "pro-lifers" when they prefer to save a fetus and destroy the life of abandoned single mothers and raped women?

It is funny? Well, don't think so, anyway, nor do I label myself "pro-lifer", nor I prefer to save a fetus life over... Oh, whatever, you aren't referencing me, of course... You are talking about that same people who are "indifferent to the Israeli attack over Palestinian kids"

But you have of course seen the post where I admit it was a poor choice of terms, haven't you?

Jan 28, 2009#344

zero

JCM said:
But nice to see how the machists still blabber about the kid.Hey, let the raped mother live with the trauma, and raise a kid on her own, so some guys dont feel bad that a fetus died.

Well, you have read me saying that I am NOT against rape abortions, right? Are you trolling me? Sorry, I'm really slow to notice those things (and have already unjustly accused Amy of doing so).

Jan 28, 2009#345

ElJuski

Krisken said:
Amy said:

@krisken
Totally thought it would have been the whole foods.

Click to expand...

Probably should have been, but I've never been there. I giggled at the name calling part in my post and then being called a douche in yours.

Never liked Earl Grey Tea though. Prefer chai.

Oh Whole Foods is fucking slammin'! We have all our best discussions by the produce section. Next week it's socioeconomic statuses in the classroom! :zoid:

Jan 28, 2009#346

SeraRelm

Is it safe to post in here again or are people still being fucking retards?

Jan 28, 2009#347

Troll

SeraRelm said:
Is it safe to post in here again or are people still being fucking retards?

Nope, some people are still being fucking retards. Just go.

Jan 28, 2009#348

JCM

Nope, I suggest you go watch a tv show or something Sera.

zero said:
Well, you have read me saying that I am NOT against rape abortions, right?

You missed the rest of my problems with guys who are against abortion-

-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

And also adopt an unwanted child if fetuses are the same as people. I dont have a single kid of my own and Im taking care of 4 kids. Amy's adopting. Or let women choose.

ElJuski said:
Krisken said:

Amy said:

@krisken
Totally thought it would have been the whole foods.

Click to expand...

Probably should have been, but I've never been there. I giggled at the name calling part in my post and then being called a douche in yours.

Never liked Earl Grey Tea though. Prefer chai.

Click to expand...

Oh Whole Foods is fucking slammin'! We have all our best discussions by the produce section. Next week it's socioeconomic statuses in the classroom!

While you all discuss, I'll be over at the chips section. Brasilian chips taste like shit, man I miss the good american stuff.

Jan 28, 2009#349

A

Amy old

zero said:
Geez Amy, to read you here, it almost seems like I'm...

no it sounds like you are trying to spoon a bunch of weak ass cop outs that waver back and forth so you'll feel better about your own crappy stance on the issues, hoping you'll never really have to deal with any of the actual issues or consequences. It is after all, a lot easier to condemn someone else's choice or right to choice when the outcome never affects you personally. Pretending that's not what your doing is laughable.

Jan 28, 2009#350

zero

Amy said:
no it sounds like you are trying to spoon a bunch of weak ass cop outs that waver back and forth so you'll feel better about your own crappy stance on the issues, hoping you'll never really have to deal with any of the actual issues or consequences.

Trust me on this one, I already did...

Amy said:
It is after all, a lot easier to condemn someone else's choice or right to choice when the outcome never affects you personally.

It surely is. It is not what I am doing

Amy said:
Pretending that's not what your doing is laughable.

Ah, well, have fun at it then... certainly it will be a lot funnier than to search for any instance where I condemn women who had abortions...

Jan 28, 2009#351

zero

JCM said:
Nope, I suggest you go watch a tv show or something Sera.

*sigh... know what? Might as well be some "Dallas" rerun...

JCM said:
zero said:

Well, you have read me saying that I am NOT against rape abortions, right?

Click to expand...

You missed the rest of my problems with guys who are against abortion-

Have I? Then why do you keep bring the issue of rape on MY posts? Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

JCM said:
And also adopt an unwanted child if fetuses are the same as people. I dont have a single kid of my own and Im taking care of 4 kids. Amy's adopting. Or let women choose.

Well, do you remember how we got started on this thread?

JCM said:
zero said:

JCM said:

My opinion is the same when people talk about the Vatican deciding whether people should about- "let women themselves choose, enough with guys trying to control women's bodies.

Click to expand...

I had precisely that opinion until a friend asked me "Well, and what if a woman pregnant with YOUR child wants to have an abortion?"

Click to expand...

Mind you, then its simple, you have a say in it.
However, the Pope doesnt.

Heck... over what are we fighting anyway?

Krisken said:
Never liked Earl Grey Tea though. Prefer chai.

Two words: O'Connors cream

Jan 28, 2009#352

Kitty Sinatra

I love this thread so much.

I'd post that picture of the kitten with the yarn, but she's off wandering the earth having adventures. Like Shannow from Halforum.

Jan 28, 2009#353

A

Amy old

Gruebeard said:
I love this thread so much.

I'd post that picture of the kitten with the yarn, but she's off wandering the earth having adventures. Like Shannow from Halforum.

why do you love this thread, babykiller/enslaver of women?

Jan 28, 2009#354

JCM

zero said:
Heck... over what are we fighting anyway?

Hmm, seeing not only I but Amy is also confused with your opinion, why dont you tell us?

Are you for, or against? Should women (and the father) choose, or does society/religion have a say?

Jan 28, 2009#355

Kitty Sinatra

There haven't been many of these raging political threads since halforum started and I was getting worried we'd run out of steam. It's good to know the locomotive is still barreling down the track.

Jan 28, 2009#356

A

Amy old

Gruebeard said:
There haven't been many of these raging political threads since halforum started and I was getting worried we'd run out of steam. It's good to know the locomotive is still barreling down the track.

why don't you just go do something useful, like kill yourself? at WHOLE FOODS.

Jan 28, 2009#357

Krisken

Amy said:
Gruebeard said:

There haven't been many of these raging political threads since halforum started and I was getting worried we'd run out of steam. It's good to know the locomotive is still barreling down the track.

Click to expand...

why don't you just go do something useful, like kill yourself? at WHOLE FOODS.

But not in the tea aisle. We certainly can't have a civilized conversation if you're bleeding profusely on the product.

Jan 28, 2009#358

Kitty Sinatra

Amy said:
Gruebeard said:

There haven't been many of these raging political threads since halforum started and I was getting worried we'd run out of steam. It's good to know the locomotive is still barreling down the track.

Click to expand...

why don't you just go do something useful, like kill yourself? at WHOLE FOODS.

But despite my shitty life, I still want to live.

At times, anyway . . . shit, Ma! Why didn't you abort me when you had the chance. :smoke:

Jan 28, 2009#359

A

Amy old

Gruebeard said:
Amy said:

Gruebeard said:

There haven't been many of these raging political threads since halforum started and I was getting worried we'd run out of steam. It's good to know the locomotive is still barreling down the track.

Click to expand...

why don't you just go do something useful, like kill yourself? at WHOLE FOODS.

Click to expand...

But despite my shitty life, I still want to live.

At times, anyway . . . shit, Ma! Why didn't you abort me when you had the chance. :smoke:

no no, wanting to live despite a shitty life is only allowed for kids. Once you're an adult with a shitty life its time to do the respectable thing and go scare some stock hippies at whole foods.

Jan 28, 2009#360

JONJONAUG

A Troll said:
JONJONAUG said:

ZenMonkey said:

JONJONAUG said:

the right to life is more important than a woman having what she perceives as irregular body functions for about ten or so months

Click to expand...

...holy FUCK.

Click to expand...

What? Fetus growth is something that comes in the technical specification sheet of females. I know it's not exactly a PC way of putting it, but there's not many other ways to say that women housing a fetus while it grows isn't unnatural. What I'm saying is right to life>emotional impact.

Click to expand...

You still don't seem to understand the difference between "being PC" and "not being a giant misogynistic douchbag." World of difference there, really, yet you can't seem to grasp how amazingly ignorant and offensive that comment was.

Actually I mostly wanted to see whether or not Amy blocked me or not. I think "holy FUCK" is a bit of an overreaction, but I know Amy would rant on it for the way I stated it (and yes, I know there's actually a million better ways to put it).

Although knowing what a femminazi Amy is, even if I had left that part out after saying that I would adopt she would suggest finding some way to house the fetus in my own body before I could be "qualified" to argue on the issue (which, given her conversation with Zero, she's about five seconds away from doing).

Another thing, why is it that so many people in this thread seem to think that giving birth means that you have to raise a child? As I stated previously (and people seemed to ignore), there is this little thing called "adoption" that actually works really well. There are plenty of single parents and married couples who want children but cannot conceive on their own, and plenty of foster care programs that work well. Even if the child doesn't necessarily get just as good care as any other child, or is unhappy, the child is sure as hell going to be happy that they existed over the alternative of being killed before being born. Saying that a woman should be forced to carry a child may be indicative of a disconnect with women aged 16-51, but saying that a person doesn't have the right to exist or shouldn't because they would be "unhappy" shows a disconnect with basic human morality. I may not understand what a woman has through during and after pregnancy, but I really don't care if the alternative is killing a life.

Since we seem to be discussing levels of guilt now, here's what I think.

Mother who gets pregnant after consensual sex and aborts without consulting husband or the husband disagrees with the decision: Cold-hearted murdering bitch
Mother who aborts after consulting with husband AND the husband agrees, consensual sex: Still a murdering bitch, but at least had some decency about it
Mother who aborts, rape or incest: I don't agree with the decision, but I wouldn't condemn them for it. I would think she needs help and counseling.
Mother who aborts due to serious health threats (ie: nothing that wouldn't normally happen as a result of pregrency, such as mood swings, temporary or permanent changes in physical appearance, etc): I'm sorry for her loss

Jan 28, 2009#361

A

Amy old

every time i read Jons stuff, I remember that he loves 4chan.

it adds a chilling perspective.

Jan 28, 2009#362

JONJONAUG said:
Actually I mostly wanted to see whether or not Amy blocked me or not.

Admitting to trolling behavior in a thread that's already about to be locked? Nice.

JONJONAUG said:
I think "holy FUCK" is a bit of an overreaction, but I know Amy would rant on it for the way I stated it (and yes, I know there's actually a million better ways to put it).

I said that, genius.

Jan 28, 2009#363

zero

JCM said:
zero said:

Heck... over what are we fighting anyway?

Click to expand...

Hmm, seeing not only I but Amy is also confused with your opinion, why dont you tell us?

I don't think Amy is really confused... I've been a bit rude with her, she's picking on me for that...

JCM said:
Are you for, or against? Should women (and the father) choose, or does society/religion have a say?

Well, you DO want the opinion of a white catholic guy who never adopted a child... ok, here it is (just remember, I will discuss my arguments, but not what I am):

As I've been saying since my very first post post here:

zero said:
I had no answer back then... I still don't...

My current opinions on that are:
Father: I am almost decided on that, he SHOULD have a saying on the life or death of his own child, even if that implies on the (awful) enslaving of a woman for 9 months. The lesser of two evils...

Religion: The point here is moot... unless of course the mother follows such religion, but then, again, the point there is moot...

Society: now, that's the question, isn't it? Society after all has a right to defend the lives of their own, and I surely don't think parents have a right to murder they born children (you know very well, that's PRECISELY what indigenous societies have been doing here in Brazil). Now, if the society has the right to enslave a woman for nine months to save her unborn unwanted child, I sincerely don't know. I tend to lean on the "no" side of this one.

What I can tell you (and that's what I have been arguing, perhaps it is much more polemic than the question of abortion itself) is that I would rather see unwanted children abandoned on the streets to misery and prostitution than dead (and it goes without saying, both scenarios are abominable).

Not that I think that an argument validity depend on who states it, but to avoid more of such confrontation, yes, I do say that from personal experience.

Jan 28, 2009#364

JONJONAUG

Amy said:
every time i read Jons stuff, I remember that he loves 4chan.

it adds a chilling perspective.

...you are very cruel. At least those people try to be misogynists from a "I have penis and therefore am better, hurrdurr" standpoint instead of trying to back it up with FACTS! [/sarcasm]

Jan 28, 2009#365

Le Quack

I vote we call an end to this thread.

Nothing good can come of it.

Lets abort this thread like a back-alley Hodoctor.

Jan 28, 2009#366

JCM

*ignore's Jon "I dont give a shit about women, but I wanna turn them into uterus life support devices Sthick*

zero said:
JCM said:

zero said:

Heck... over what are we fighting anyway?

Click to expand...

Hmm, seeing not only I but Amy is also confused with your opinion, why dont you tell us?

Click to expand...

I don't think Amy is really confused... I've been a bit rude with her, she's picking on me for that...

JCM said:

Are you for, or against? Should women (and the father) choose, or does society/religion have a say?

Click to expand...

Well, you DO want the opinion of a white catholic guy who never adopted a child... ok, here it is (just remember, I will discuss my arguments, but not what I am):

As I've been saying since my very first post post here:

zero said:

I had no answer back then... I still don't...

Click to expand...

My current opinions on that are:
Father: I am almost decided on that, he SHOULD have a saying on the life or death of his own child, even if that implies on the (awful) enslaving of a woman for 9 months. The lesser of two evils...

Religion: The point here is moot... unless of course the mother follows such religion, but then, again, the point there is moot...

Society: now, that's the question, isn't it? Society after all has a right to defend the lives of their own, and I surely don't think parents have a right to murder they born children (you know very well, that's PRECISELY what indigenous societies have been doing here in Brazil). Now, if the society has the right to enslave a woman for nine months to save her unborn unwanted child, I sincerely don't know. I tend to lean on the "no" side of this one.

Okay, now I know where you stand on the issue.

reminds me of this comic-

ZenMonkey said:
JONJONAUG said:

Actually I mostly wanted to see whether or not Amy blocked me or not.

Click to expand...

Admitting to trolling behavior in a thread that's already about to be locked? Nice.

JONJONAUG said:

I think "holy FUCK" is a bit of an overreaction, but I know Amy would rant on it for the way I stated it (and yes, I know there's actually a million better ways to put it).

Click to expand...

I said that, genius.

You know, as much as I feel that an average mod is pretty much low on the food chain, Zen is pretty much proving me wrong.

Jan 28, 2009#367

Le Quack said:
I vote we call an end to this thread.

Honestly, I've been keeping it open since it's skirting that line and I don't want to censor discussion, but if the posters in this thread agree, I'll lock it down.

(Not saying I won't otherwise, especially with Jon admitting that he's posting stuff just to get a rise out of people, which is trolling.)

Jan 28, 2009#368

zero

JCM said:
Okay, now I know where you stand on the issue.

reminds me of this comic-(snip)

Heh, come on, admit it, I have been honest about it since the 1st page. I just got bugged when the "those kids would be better of dead" showed up.

Jan 28, 2009#369

JCM

zero said:
JCM said:

Okay, now I know where you stand on the issue.

reminds me of this comic-(snip)

Click to expand...

Heh, come on, admit it, I have been honest about it since the 1st page. I just got bugged when the "those kids would be better of dead" showed up.

Fair enough, while I may not agree that many kids should be raised at all (heck, thats what the lower class brazilians and Indians do, make kids one after another), the rest pretty much I agree with you.

Last post before the lock?

Jan 28, 2009#370

JONJONAUG

ZenMonkey said:
Le Quack said:

I vote we call an end to this thread.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I've been keeping it open since it's skirting that line and I don't want to censor discussion, but if the posters in this thread agree, I'll lock it down.

(Not saying I won't otherwise, especially with Jon admitting that he's posting stuff just to get a rise out of people, which is trolling.)

I was serious about everything else I posted. I've just been curious for a while if Amy foe'd me or not, that's all.

*ignore's Jon "I dont give a shit about women, but I wanna turn them into uterus life support devices Sthick*

I said that I know I can't understand them, that doesn't mean I don't care. I just care more about saving a life than caring about the emotional impact of pregnancy.

Jan 28, 2009#371

Iaculus

JONJONAUG said:
ZenMonkey said:

Le Quack said:

I vote we call an end to this thread.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I've been keeping it open since it's skirting that line and I don't want to censor discussion, but if the posters in this thread agree, I'll lock it down.

(Not saying I won't otherwise, especially with Jon admitting that he's posting stuff just to get a rise out of people, which is trolling.)

Click to expand...

I was serious about everything else I posted. I've just been curious for a while if Amy foe'd me or not, that's all.

*ignore's Jon "I dont give a shit about women, but I wanna turn them into uterus life support devices Sthick*

Click to expand...

I said that I know I can't understand them, that doesn't mean I don't care. I just care more about saving a life than caring about the emotional impact of pregnancy.

:eyeroll:

All right, folks, you've twisted my arm.

I warn you - this doesn't make for pleasant reading.

http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/010623_paper25.pdf

Jan 28, 2009#372

A

Amy old

zero said:
JCM said:

"those kids would be better of dead" showed up.

Click to expand...

who said that, exactly?

Jan 28, 2009#373

JONJONAUG

Therefore in 1967 it was adopted the
Decree 770 by which the abortion and using of contraceptive means were prohibited.

Ouch.

According to the Decree adopted in 1967 every woman under 45 years old had the
patriotic duty to give to the homeland at least 5 children.

OUCH! That's just retarded.

At the same time the law punished the sale of modern contraceptive means which,
as a result, disappeared from the specialised shops. All persons over 25 years old who did
not have children (excepting those who had valid medical infertility problems) were
punished for celibate, paying 30 per cent tax on income.

Jan 28, 2009#374

JONJONAUG said:
I was serious about everything else I posted. I've just been curious for a while if Amy foe'd me or not, that's all.

I give a crap. Take that stuff to PMs.

I said that I know I can't understand them, that doesn't mean I don't care. I just care more about saving a life than caring about the emotional impact of pregnancy.

What if that emotional impact were to lead the mother to suicide?

Jan 28, 2009#375

JONJONAUG

ZenMonkey said:
What if that emotional impact were to lead the mother to suicide?

There should be aid for these cases. The mother should explore alternatives and try to get help first. If the mother clearly cannot be helped, then it would be acceptable to abort the fetus.

Jan 28, 2009#376

JCM

Zen

You are talking to man who still goes on 4chan, prefers to focre a womoan to bear a kid and destroy her life and wont adopt a kid himself

JONJONAUG said:
*ignore's Jon "I dont give a shit about women, but I wanna turn them into uterus life support devices Sthick*

Click to expand...

I said that I know I can't understand them, that doesn't mean I don't care. I just care more about saving a fetus than caring about ruining a woman's life to feel good

Haven't you been out of 4chan to see the real world, and think that saving a fetus is great, at the price of forcing low-income family wives become baby factories, single mothers-to-be who had the father leave to raise a kid on their own and raped women to forever remember the rape, and destroy the rest of your life?

Jesus, thats what I find funny about your shit, you'd save a fetus and destroy the life of a woman to feel good about morals, but hey, like Amy said, you guys are full of shit, babbling about saving unborn kids, while not a single one of you will adopt a kid.

No wonder you've taken to trolling.

Jan 28, 2009#377

JONJONAUG said:
There should be aid for these cases. The mother should explore alternatives and try to get help first. If the mother clearly cannot be helped, then it would be acceptable to abort the fetus.

That's a lot of shoulds and woulds for a society where things aren't always as clearly defined as you'd like them to be.

Jan 28, 2009#378

Troll

zero said:
Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

:shock:

Jan 28, 2009#379

Iaculus

JONJONAUG said:
Therefore in 1967 it was adopted the
Decree 770 by which the abortion and using of contraceptive means were prohibited.

Click to expand...

Ouch.

[quote:3kr57cub]According to the Decree adopted in 1967 every woman under 45 years old had the
patriotic duty to give to the homeland at least 5 children.

OUCH! That's just retarded.

At the same time the law punished the sale of modern contraceptive means which,
as a result, disappeared from the specialised shops. All persons over 25 years old who did
not have children (excepting those who had valid medical infertility problems) were
punished for celibate, paying 30 per cent tax on income.

*Facepalm* This is not an article showing the effects of when abortion is illegal, this is an article showing the effects of what happens when some idiot decides that the entire female population is suddenly designated the status of "baby factory".[/quote:3kr57cub]

The effects, however, had a great deal to do with the outlawing of abortion. Observe the skyrocketing demand for back-alley abortions and rise in mortality rate amongst mothers - this despite abortions for health reasons being legal. Also, note the difficulties the social services had in coping with the situation - exaggerated by the incentives for having babies, yes, and unlikely to occur to such a spectacular extent in a modern, Western country, but still pimarily triggered by the outlawing of non-medical abortion.

Jan 28, 2009#380

A Troll said:
zero said:

Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

Click to expand...

:shock:

Oh come on, even I know he meant "it is possible for this to happen" not "a husband is entitled to do it."

Jan 28, 2009#381

A

Amy old

A Troll said:
zero said:

Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

Click to expand...

:shock:

to be fair i think the fuckhat meant to say that a husband can be guilty of raping his wife, not that raping his wife was kosher behaviour.

Back to ignore with you now, troll.

Jan 28, 2009#382

JCM

ZenMonkey said:
JONJONAUG said:

There should be aid for these cases. The mother should explore alternatives and try to get help first. If the mother clearly cannot be helped, then it would be acceptable to abort the fetus.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of shoulds and woulds for a society where things aren't always as clearly defined as you'd like them to be.

Yep.

like I said, for society to have the right to call abortion "murder", and control women's bodies, chauvinists like Jon would have to endure that-

-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

Because right now, repeated rapists are let out of jail.
Shitloads of low-income family moms have nowhere to go, and are just baby-making machines.
Shitloads of mothers-to-be are left by the fathers, and society does shit about it.

A society in which women still earn less than men, have less rights around the world will want to force them to destroy her life so that people like Jon can feel like good Christians? Fuck that.

Jan 28, 2009#383

JONJONAUG

JCM said:
Jesus, thats what I find funny about your shit, you'd save a fetus and destroy the life of a woman to feel good about morals, but hey, like Amy said, you guys are full of shit, babbling about saving unborn kids, while not a single one of you will adopt a kid.

I would adopt a child. If I ever settle down and decide to have children, I would prefer to adopt because I know there are children who are in need of it (and being adopted myself, it would feel wrong not to give back to the system by doing the same). I'm 19 and in college, I'm in no position to adopt a child at the present. You're the one who keeps ignoring the prospect of foster care or adoption for unwanted children.

but still pimarily triggered by the outlawing of non-medical abortion.

And the outlawing of contraceptives (people like sex because sex feels good, they aren't all suddenly going to become chaste) and levying unfair taxes on people who don't have children.

-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

I'm fine with all of those.

Jan 28, 2009#384

JONJONAUG said:
I'm 19 and in college

Ah.

Jan 28, 2009#385

zero

A Troll said:
zero said:

Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

Click to expand...

:shock:

Heh, nice catch Troll, you got me there.
Rephrasing it: I of course think a husband having unconsensual sex with his wife is guilty of rape, and should be punished as so.

Jan 28, 2009#386

JCM

To be fair Zen, at 19 I was sick of religion, doing sex tourism and didnt give a shit about social causes.

JONJONAUG said:
-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with all of those.

So instead of adding to guilt already faced by women at such a decision, why dont we fight for those BEFORE we call women murderers?

Jan 28, 2009#387

zero

Amy said:
to be fair i think the fuckhat (...)

Yikes! ... she's still steamed...

Jan 28, 2009#388

JCM said:
To be fair Zen, at 19 I was sick of religion, doing sex tourism and didnt give a shit about social causes.

All I meant was his age sheds some light on his position. (As it does any of us.) I had a whole other idea of where he was coming from. Which doesn't change anything, just clarifies some things for me.

Jan 28, 2009#389

JONJONAUG

JCM said:
To be fair Zen, at 19 I was sick of religion, doing sex tourism and didnt give a shit about social causes.

JONJONAUG said:

-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with all of those.

Click to expand...

So instead of adding to guilt already faced by women at such a decision, why dont we fight for those BEFORE we call women murderers?

Because this thread's about abortion.

Jan 28, 2009#390

ThatGrinningIdiot!

ZenMonkey said:
JONJONAUG said:

I'm 19 and in college

Click to expand...

Ah.

I didn't think it would be a possible that a simple phrase of acknowledgement would contain such sarcasm. I'm in awe of it.

Jan 28, 2009#391

A

Amy old

zero said:
Amy said:

to be fair i think the fuckhat (...)

Click to expand...

Yikes! ... she's still steamed...

Quit crying. go earn some of that moral superiority you claim by going out and adopting a kid, instead of being all like "zomg, that woman's pregnant! Cordon her off and chain her down! Screw her needs! She's just the life support machine! Save the baby! Save the unborn baby! But make sure that once it's born, that I don't have to deal with it."

Jan 28, 2009#392

BlackCrossCrusader said:
I didn't think it would be a possible that a simple phrase of acknowledgement would contain such sarcasm. I'm in awe of it.

Funny, I was just commenting to someone how people will project all kinds of things onto a terse reply. Maybe you didn't bother reading my further explication of that response? No, I guess not.

Jan 28, 2009#393

ThatGrinningIdiot!

ZenMonkey said:
BlackCrossCrusader said:

I didn't think it would be a possible that a simple phrase of acknowledgement would contain such sarcasm. I'm in awe of it.

Click to expand...

Funny, I was just commenting to someone how people will project all kinds of things onto a terse reply. Maybe you didn't bother reading my further explication of that response? No, I guess not.

Oh, I did. But you guys type faster than I do. You already explained yourself, all the while I was typing with a speed comparable to a sloth. :sadness:

Jan 28, 2009#394

BlackCrossCrusader said:
Oh, I did. But you guys type faster than I do. You already explained yourself, all the while I was typing with a speed comparable to a sloth. :sadness:

Fair enough.

Jan 28, 2009#395

A

Amy old

*slaps zenmonkey for earlier pmmed reasons*
:teeth:

Jan 28, 2009#396

JCM

JONJONAUG said:
JCM said:

To be fair Zen, at 19 I was sick of religion, doing sex tourism and didnt give a shit about social causes.

JONJONAUG said:

-a)Castrate rapists/make laws sterners to STOP repeat rapists and give financial aid to raise the unwanted rape child.
-b)Put stern laws that considers a husband a rapist should he have sex with a woman when she doesnt want to, and provide shelters for women who are kicked off from home for refusing sex, especially among the lower class, because many lower-class women have no way to get away from these husbands, and shouldnt be relegated to becoming a baby-making factory to please morals of others.
-c)Put a biological father in jail should he run off, have him work a sweatshop to pay alimony, should he be unable to pay for it, because damn there are shitloads of women who are abandoned by the father of the child.
-d)Prohibit anything that usually kills the fetus, like sex the few months after, heavy exercise.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with all of those.

Click to expand...

So instead of adding to guilt already faced by women at such a decision, why dont we fight for those BEFORE we call women murderers?

Click to expand...

Because this thread's about abortion.

And the above are the leading causes of why abortion is legal.

Jan 28, 2009#397

Troll

zero said:
A Troll said:

zero said:

Of course I agree a husband can rape his wife, and you surely have seen that I DO defend that a biological runway father should be put in Jail...

Click to expand...

:shock:

Click to expand...

Heh, nice catch Troll, you got me there.
Rephrasing it: I of course think a husband having unconsensual sex with his wife is guilty of rape, and should be punished as so.

Just to clarify, since my post ended up getting even more miscontrued...

I wasn't saying that's what you meant, it's just how I read it the first time. All on me, not you. Sorry for the confusion.

Jan 28, 2009#398

Amy said:
*slaps zenmonkey for earlier pmmed reasons*
:teeth:

*stabs Amy with a stale pita triangle*

Jan 28, 2009#399

zero

Amy said:
zero said:

"those kids would be better of dead" showed up.

Click to expand...

who said that, exactly?

I would be tempted to say "you", but I see this leading to another "Why the heck are we fighting?"

Amy said:
zero said:

Their life is miserable beyond imagination... and still they want to live. That's all life imperative...

Click to expand...

Proof?
Because without any, you're making general statements based on hypotheticals to support your position. JCM on the other hand, has posted pictoral evidence that people in fact do not all want to live.

You called bullshit and asked for "proof" (seriously?) on my "they want to live", which was quite surprising to me... and then...

Amy said:
Yeah, and you're missing my point, the point being that there are hundreds of thousands of kids we already can't adequately take care of living and breathing on this earth, (you acknowledge that you can't take care of even one,) but you want to stop women from making sure more aren't brought into this world to suffer? Murder or not, there aren't enough people who want to adequately raise and care for the children that ARE here, and you want to add more to that problem?

Well, but so what? You think it is better that those children were never brought to this place to begin with? Perhaps that's when I misunderstood you...

Jan 28, 2009#400

JCM

Its been fun, but I gotta go out and drink and mate (no, I wont have kids to abort, but thats a different story), nighty night all

Jan 28, 2009#401

zero

Amy said:
Quit crying. go earn some of that moral superiority you claim by going out and adopting a kid, instead of being all like "zomg, that woman's pregnant! Cordon her off and chain her down! Screw her needs! She's just the life support machine! Save the baby! Save the unborn baby! But make sure that once it's born, that I don't have to deal with it."

Enough of this. Moving to PM (Heck, I was really close to give up and ask for a lock).

Jan 28, 2009#402

A

Amy old

zero said:
[]Well, but so what? You think it is better that those children were never brought to this place to begin with? Perhaps that's when I misunderstood you...

Heres how I see it, twat muscle. Take care of the living first. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then don't force her because her child might live. Yeah, its that conception life issue, but listen you shitbag on a stick, I've made my peace with that. What really rubs me the wrong fucking way is when assholes like you go parading around saying that those women over there are doing something you find wrong, but then refuse to actually provide a better solution than "Oh don't do that! Who cares if that child has a shitty life full of rape and abuse and no one to love it?"

Its easy for you to do because you'll never have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

So in the end yeah, I think a life full of misery and shit and hell is worse than not being born. It actually seems crueler to me to bring a child into this world when all they are going to look forward to is pain loneliness and shitty days.

Jan 28, 2009#403

zero

Amy said:
(...) twat muscle (...) you shitbag on a stick (...) assholes like you (...)

Again, answer in PM.

Jan 28, 2009#404

A

Amy old

zero said:
Amy said:

(...) twat muscle (...) you shitbag on a stick (...) assholes like you (...)

Click to expand...

Again, answer in PM.

no. I'll answer you here. For a few reasons. A) fuck you and B) posting my responses here makes it easier for others who agree/disagree to access the points discussed. If some sensitive schmuck can't take it, that's not my problem.

Jan 28, 2009#405

ElJuski

I think it's a rule that if I see 'twat muscle' it's time to close down a thread :rofl:

. It looks like nothing is going to get accomplished after all, so I'm ready to drop the lock. ZM, NR, Ed--agree?

I won't touch it if you guys still wanna play. But play nice

Jan 28, 2009#406

A

Amy old

whatever you say, cock vein.

Jan 28, 2009#407

Cajungal

I just wanna say that I understand how anti-abortion people feel. I don't think I could get one, and did have religious upbringing. However... there are definitely circumstances where I believe it's the best route to take. Rape, I guess, is the most popular example, but there are more.

Frankly, there are a lot of people who make the wrong choices when they have sex, I.E., opting out of birth control. It's important to remember that we need to be responsible with our freedom so as not to overpopulate and bring children into unsavory situations.

That said, I support choice, even though sometimes it makes me a little sad. Because I DO believe that a little life is being snuffed out... but one huge thing I took from Christianity is the idea of free will. Life sucks, and it comes with tough decisions. I'm not about to judge women I don't know for taking action in a situation I've never had to deal with (yet).

Jan 28, 2009#408

A

Amy old

Ideally, no lives would ever be snuffed out. But man, take a look around. We do NOT live in an underpopulated utopia here. People are dying, some are dying horribly painful deaths, for no real reason. I'm the first proponent to suggest adoption over abortion, but to say that a woman can't make that vital choice for herself?

Jan 28, 2009#409

Troll

Cajungal said:
Frankly, there are a lot of people who make the wrong choices when they have sex, I.E., opting out of birth control. It's important to remember that we need to be responsible with our freedom so as not to overpopulate and bring children into unsavory situations.

The downside to being pro-choice is the ones who make it look bad via using abortion as a contraceptive. Obviously those folks are such a small minority of cases out there, but that's also part of the reason they get so much attention. It's still worth it, IMO, to make sure people have the freedom to make their own choices in this matter, even if it means a few people make bad choices.

There are downsides like this to every freedom in the US. They are never compelling enough to take those freedoms away.

Jan 28, 2009#410

Cajungal

Amy said:
Ideally, no lives would ever be snuffed out. But man, take a look around. We do NOT live in an underpopulated utopia here. People are dying, some are dying horribly painful deaths, for no real reason. I'm the first proponent to suggest adoption over abortion, but to say that a woman can't make that vital choice for herself?

Absolutely, I agree. Like I said, free will. I try to keep my personal feelings out of it, because I hope that others would do the same for me if it ever came to that. There are so many children already born who need love. Maybe that's why I don't want kids of my own. That's always kind of tugged at my heart.

And yeah, Troll, you pretty much said outright what I was getting at. I don't like the idea of abortion as a common contraceptive. But it doesn't seem like that's the norm.

Jan 28, 2009#411

ElJuski

Amy, I wish I had you around all those times I needed to come up with a snappy insult. I usually just add (cunt) + (inanimate object). Can you teach me your ways?

Jan 28, 2009#412

Cajungal

I thought more people did that. My angry driving word is fishcunt.

Jan 28, 2009#413

A

Amy old

ElJuski said:
Amy, I wish I had you around all those times I needed to come up with a snappy insult. I usually just add (cunt) + (inanimate object). Can you teach me your ways?

swear word/body part/slur + inanimate object or adverb

Tard cup.
Shit diamond.
Piss box
ass drinker.

Jan 28, 2009#414

Amy said:
swear word/body part/slur + inanimate object or adverb

Tard cup.
Shit diamond.
Piss box
ass drinker.

Best Madlibs ever!

You douchecandy.

Jan 28, 2009#415

A

Amy old

Cum dradle.

Jan 28, 2009#416

Cajungal

Amy said:
Cum dradle.

:lol: :lol: :lol: *Oh God, I'm crying*

Jan 28, 2009#417

zero

Ah! Well, if not even the mods have issue with how the conversation between me and Amy was turning, then I'll quit annoying her with PM's and do it here... (English isn't my first language (more like 4th), so perhaps she sounded more serious to me than intended).

Jan 28, 2009#418

zero

Amy said:
Quit crying. go earn some of that moral superiority you claim by going out and adopting a kid, instead of being all like "zomg, that woman's pregnant! Cordon her off and chain her down! Screw her needs! She's just the life support machine! Save the baby! Save the unborn baby! But make sure that once it's born, that I don't have to deal with it."

Ok, here's the deal:

I am really sorry I went "are you for real?" on you. That WAS rude and uncalled for. That's the third time I apologize for it. I truly believe it is enough.

I won't point that I don't see woman as baby machines nor that I do not condemn women who have abortions. There are plenty of posts of mine stating that.

I will though, vehemently object to any argument that claim that it is worse for a child to be brought into this world unwanted than be aborted. Perhaps it is a personal matter for me, since I have worked with such children, but I'm saying it from personal experience. Those children are very grateful for their awfully miserable life.

That's about it.

Jan 28, 2009#419

ElJuski

No; Amy's insults are always a lighthearted delight. For the most part. But either way I think from the PMs I've gotten the best thing to do is to shut this baby down. See you all next time on ABORTION 2: ELECTRIC THREAD BOOGALOO

Jan 28, 2009#420

zero

Amy said:
zero said:

[]Well, but so what? You think it is better that those children were never brought to this place to begin with? Perhaps that's when I misunderstood you...

Click to expand...

Heres how I see it, twat muscle. Take care of the living first. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, then don't force her because her child might live. Yeah, its that conception life issue, but listen you shitbag on a stick, I've made my peace with that. What really rubs me the wrong fucking way is when assholes like you go parading around saying that those women over there are doing something you find wrong (...)

Now, first of all... is there a point to all those insults? That leads to nowhere and it is just plainly annoying...
Moving on...

Amy said:
but then refuse to actually provide a better solution than "Oh don't do that! Who cares if that child has a shitty life full of rape and abuse and no one to love it?"

Well, see there's precisely where you and I disagree. I don't think "never being born in the first place" is a better solution for the child.

Amy said:
Its easy for you to do because you'll never have to deal with the consequences of your statements.

No, I don't, but the child do, and I'm telling you the child chose to live

Amy said:
So in the end yeah, I think a life full of misery and shit and hell is worse than not being born. It actually seems crueler to me to bring a child into this world when all they are going to look forward to is pain loneliness and shitty days.

Now we're getting somewhere... If you think so, I won't try to change your mind... but if you're feeling curious, go and try to meet abandoned children. I think you will be surprised of how much they value their life.

Jan 28, 2009#421

zero

Those are the PM's I sent to Amy... let's hear her back (flameproof suit on)

Forums