NationStates Jolt Archive

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.

I would second that to some extend. But I would opt for abortion remaining legal in extreme cases (health risks for the mother, rape-victims, etc.)

I want Roe v. Wade overturned.

I want Roe v. Wade overturned.

I feel not many people that will be drawn to this thread know what Roe v. Wade is. If I happen to be wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised.

I feel not many people that will be drawn to this thread know what Roe v. Wade is. If I happen to be wrong, then I will be pleasantly surprised.

I think most people drawn to an abortion debate will know exactly what Roe v. Wade is.

I think most people drawn to an abortion debate will know exactly what Roe v. Wade is.

Perhaps you could summarize the salient points of the Roe V. Wade decision in a sappy poem.

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.
Basically, abortion being legal or illegal won't directly affect me. If women would be the only ones to decide on the issue, I'd accept the decision. Otherwise, I'm pro-choice.

Hmm. I expected more people to get mad at me for my comment.

Hmm. I expected more people to get mad at me for my comment.

Well, im dutch, so Roe vs Wade is a bit unclear to me, i think its the courtcase that made abortion legal in the US, but what/why is unclear to me. If you could explain i promise ill get mad at you (j/k):D

Mmmmm.... this thread should be nice n' toasty in no time.

For those that want to outlaw abortion, consider this: regardless of all other facts, women will still get abortions, even if it has to be in a back ally with a coat hanger. You could lock many of them up, but iit won't be a deterrant, any more than execution is to a murder.

Who is going to look after all the unwanted children? Americans don't want their taxes raised, yet money will have to be spent to look after abandoned and unwanted children. Educate them, feed them, house them...

This should be interesting. Excuse me while I nip out and get the marshmallows.

Mmmmm.... this thread should be nice n' toasty in no time.

For those that want to outlaw abortion, consider this: regardless of all other facts, women will still get abortions, even if it has to be in a back ally with a coat hanger. You could lock many of them up, but iit won't be a deterrant, any more than execution is to a murder.

Who is going to look after all the unwanted children? Americans don't want their taxes raised, yet money will have to be spent to look after abandoned and unwanted children. Educate them, feed them, house them...

This should be interesting. Excuse me while I nip out and get the marshmallows.


*lol

Did you READ to original post, honey? That's what this is all about ;)

*lol

Did you READ to original post, honey? That's what this is all about ;)

Yeah, I read it. I felt important to restate the obvious.

Not that it'll make much of a difference, of course.

If we outlaw abortion, then what will abortion doctors do for a job? As it is now, they are barely scraping out a living.

Abortion is good for the economy - more jobs and less welfare. Any right-thinking, pro-business conservative should be arguing for mandatory abortions.

Hmm. I expected more people to get mad at me for my comment.
So you are trolling isnt that just great? :rolleyes:





I read in the Newspaper maybe 3 or 4 months ago the Woman who campaigned for kiddy killing now wants it reversed because the Abortion process amy harm the Woman having the 'operation'.

I dont think she was called Roe or Wade though...

If we outlaw abortion, then what will abortion doctors do for a job? As it is now, they are barely scraping out a living.

Abortion is good for the economy - more jobs and less welfare. Any right-thinking, pro-business conservative should be arguing for mandatory abortions.

Hell, I've been in favour of abortion right into the 83rd trimester. It's never to early to send the neighbours screaming little monsters off to a trip to the abortionist, in my opinion.

Hell, I've been in favour of abortion right into the 83rd trimester. It's never to early to send the neighbours screaming little monsters off to a trip to the abortionist, in my opinion.

I was just kidding though. I think abortion should be allowed for only two reasons:

1. The life of the mother may be in danger, or

2. The life of the father may be inconvenienced.

So you are trolling isnt that just great? :rolleyes:


I figured I would be asked for my reasons.

I was just kidding though. I think abortion should be allowed for only two reasons:

1. The life of the mother may be in danger, or

2. The life of the father may be inconvenienced.

I think the mother should be able to get an abortion when she wants, and however often she wants. I mean, it's not like we have a shortage of humans around this dirtball of a planet, do we?

Your body, your choice.

People are gonna have abortions either way...so give them a safe environment in wich to do so, rather than at home with a coat hanger (endangering their lives).

I think the mother should be able to get an abortion when she wants, and however often she wants. I mean, it's not like we have a shortage of humans around this dirtball of a planet, do we?

Yeah, I was kidding again. Although I have to disagree on the "however often she wants" part. I think we should restrict abortions to one per fetus. We don't want to be accused of running up the score.

I figured I would be asked for my reasons.

I assumed the reason you wanted Roe V. Wade overturned was to show the American people how dangerous it is to vote for a religious-right-pandering, supreme-court-nominating, Texas-shit-kicking President - In the hope that they will never do such a stupid thing again.





Was I right?

Yeah, I was kidding again. Although I have to disagree on the "however often she wants" part. I think we should restrict abortions to one per fetus. We don't want to be accused of running up the score.

I don't see why they shouldn't. I mean, if the right-wing religious whackjobs are going to have a shitfit over abortions, you might as well make it worth your while getting their knickers into a twist, if only for entertainment value.

There's something faulty in the logic of the opening post. It proposes higher taxes for abortions. This is the best way to ruin the life of young students. They'd be faced with the choice between having the child and possibly ending their studies or being burdened with taxes and then ending their studies. Not to mention families that don't want more children because they wouldn't be able to afford it. Why give them more taxes?
A solution isn't supposed to make the problem worse, which in my mind it would.

Was I right?

In a sense. Pro-lifers seem to believe that if we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will become illegal. This is not the case. It will simply return the matter to the states. And contrary to what many pro-lifers hope, a few states will legalize abortions. This will cause the more rabid pro-lifers to clamor for some kind of federal law banning abortions, and that will put the current administration (and future conservative administrations) in a bind. They will either have to appease their Christian base and ban abortions or stay true to their small government, state's-rights stance. They will have to make a choice, because their own supporters will press the issue. It's sort of the same debate as you see over gay marriage. They claim to be staunch supporters of state's rights, but when a state makes a decision that is contrary to their beliefs, they start talk about overruling that decision at the federal level. I think it will expose them as awful hypocrites.

Here's my thoughts on abortion (which I also apply to gay marriage, drugs, etc etc)

It makes more sense having it legal. If you don't like it, you don't do it. If you want it, you have that choice avaliable, and you don't effect anyone else.

Supply will always fit demand. If you ban abortion, illegal unsafe clinics will spring up in back alleys, and more lives will be lost.

[/FONT][SIZE=7][COLOR=Black]
I consider myself extremely liberal, and am in no way against womans rights or for illegalizing abortion. But theres a paradox in the pro-choice argument. The argument is that women should have a choice with what goes on with their bodies. But doesn't the aborted child or fetus have a choice on what goes on with its body. And you may argue the fetus isn't a person yet so it hasn't developed, but it that child had been allowed to develop it would at some point become a thinking being and should also have rights on what goes on with its body. The pro-choice argument should be changed to I have my rights to control what happens in my body even if it destroys another person's rights to decide what happens to their body in the future.

Your body, your choice.

People are gonna have abortions either way...so give them a safe environment in wich to do so, rather than at home with a coat hanger (endangering their lives).

I love your two arguments, for they are pathetic.

1. Would support the case for making suicide legal, drugs, and other things that are potentially harmful.
2. So what if they do it either way, people do drugs even though they are illegal, so should we make it legal? Also for the latter part, that should be justified by your first statement, she wants to risk her life getting an abortion then let her.

[/FONT][SIZE=7][COLOR=Black]
I consider myself extremely liberal, and am in no way against womans rights or for illegalizing abortion. But theres a paradox in the pro-choice argument. The argument is that women should have a choice with what goes on with their bodies. But doesn't the aborted child or fetus have a choice on what goes on with its body. And you may argue the fetus isn't a person yet so it hasn't developed, but it that child had been allowed to develop it would at some point become a thinking being and should also have rights on what goes on with its body. The pro-choice argument should be changed to I have my rights to control what happens in my body even if it destroys another person's rights to decide what happens to their body in the future.

Fetuses don't have rights. They aren't another person.

I love your two arguments, for they are pathetic.

1. Would support the case for making suicide legal, drugs, and other things that are potentially harmful.
2. So what if they do it either way, people do drugs even though they are illegal, so should we make it legal? Also for the latter part, that should be justified by your first statement, she wants to risk her life getting an abortion then let her.

Why shouldn't drugs or suicide be legal?

Why shouldn't drugs or suicide be legal?

Drugs don't know why they are illegal, and why we are sending helicopters to ruin the columbians harvests (probably has some economic thing).

Suicide is probably illegal because it is similar to attempted murder (Attempted was put because if you succeeded then you wouldn't have to worry), or the fact that everyone wants to sue the depression medicine people.

[QUOTE=Sdaeriji]Fetuses don't have rights. They aren't another person
So when do fetuses stop being fetuses and start being humans? If it wasn't aborted or had a major complication during pregnancy or at birth it would become a person. So your saying a fetus doesn't have rights because its not old enough yet?

So when do fetuses stop being fetuses and start being humans? If it wasn't aborted or had a major complication during pregnancy or at birth it would become a person. So your saying a fetus doesn't have rights because its not old enough yet?
Rights are not based on potential. A one-man business does not have the same rights and duties as a PLC, even if it has the potential to grow into such.
A fetus becomes a person the moment it is born.

...Would support the case for making suicide legal....
Is suicide still illegal there?!

A fetus becomes a person the moment it is born.
Why do you say this? The new-born baby is really no different to the foetus in any regard other than location.

A fetus becomes a person the moment it is born.
Why do you say this? The new-born baby is really no different to the foetus in any regard other than location.

A fetus becomes a person the moment it is born.
Why do you say this? The new-born baby is really no different to the foetus in any regard other than location.

A fetus becomes a person the moment it is born.
Why do you say this? The new-born baby is really no different to the foetus in any regard other than location.

In an extremely right wing government abortion would be illegal. In a nation whare basic human rights are upheld as they should be and there were such a thing as TRUE family values, abortion would be unthinkable.

Think about WHY people are driven to give up on the gift of a child to them: reasons are usually economic, although it also serves as a downright sinister form of birth control. It is bad enough that the culture of individualism does not entail respect for the lives of anyone that is 'inconvenient' to those 'moving up'.

Your body, your choice.

People are gonna have abortions either way...so give them a safe environment in wich to do so, rather than at home with a coat hanger (endangering their lives).

Seconded.

Ban abortion!

Heres the thing, Roe v. Wade terribly divided the country. Overturning it would....only...horribly divide the country.

I have no problem with abortion per-say but I think I dislike some of the oversights. If it is a woman's right to chose and the man (yes gals it still takes two to tango) has no say then what of when a woman decides not to abort? Well it is the man's responsibility to fiance her decision. Why not give men the right to chose and women the responsibility for their decisions? I propose a legal document. A writ of abortion. If the father signs a writ of abortion and the woman decides not to abort than theman loses all paternity rights but the woman is solely responsible for the child. Now if you are against abortion than please do not reply we lose common ground by the first sentence. but If you are for abortion then please explain why a woman's choice should compell a man......

Your body, your choice.

People are gonna have abortions either way...so give them a safe environment in wich to do so, rather than at home with a coat hanger (endangering their lives).

Thirded.

I, personally, would not have an abortion, but if a woman wants to, who's going to stop her?

An abortion is helluvalot better than a woman with a baby she has no money, no time, and no means to look after. You're just going to put a whole bunch of kids in the system, and that's not good.

Whatever happens, I think banning abortion in all cases is just stupid. What about rape or incest? Even late term abortions should be allowed, what if you're baby isn't developing properly? What if your baby will be born paralysed from the neck down? Hm?

If we outlaw abortion, then what will abortion doctors do for a job? As it is now, they are barely scraping out a living.

Abortion is good for the economy - more jobs and less welfare. Any right-thinking, pro-business conservative should be arguing for mandatory abortions.

Barely *scraping* a living. Get it?

Hahahaha!

I love it.

As Maddox said, im anti-abortion but pro-killing babies.

Seriously this whole thing is blown out of proportion.

Who cares if they get an abortion apart from someone who is self-assured that humanity has a greater meaning or purpose in life when in actuality we don't.

Sure he can believe it and live by it on his own terms but he can't make other people live by those terms aswell.

End of.

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.



This is silly and unjust, but, if it keeps children from being murdered, I'd gladly give 100% of my paycheck to the cause and go live on foodstamps or something.

Thirded.

I, personally, would not have an abortion, but if a woman wants to, who's going to stop her?

An abortion is helluvalot better than a woman with a baby she has no money, no time, and no means to look after. You're just going to put a whole bunch of kids in the system, and that's not good.

Whatever happens, I think banning abortion in all cases is just stupid. What about rape or incest? Even late term abortions should be allowed, what if you're baby isn't developing properly? What if your baby will be born paralysed from the neck down? Hm?



I'd much rather enjoy the gift of life while paralyzed than be brutally murdered and never even given a chance.

I want Roe v. Wade overturned.
I don't = the rightwing controlled government doesn't need a go-ahead to do more crazy shit with by the overturnment of any case dealing with the right to privacy, which is what Roe was about. Yes, it made abortion not illegal, but it also again reaffirmed the right to privacy and told busy-bodies in teh legislature where to stick it

I'd much rather enjoy the gift of life while paralyzed than be brutally murdered and never even given a chance.
maybe you should go interview a bunch of paraplegics and see how people that are actually effected by it think and not faking empathy to gain the moral highground.

I'd much rather enjoy the gift of life while paralyzed than be brutally murdered and never even given a chance.
wow :rolleyes:

Ihatevacations']I don't = the rightwing controlled government doesn't need a go-ahead to do more crazy shit with by the overturnment of any case dealing with the right to privacy, which is what Roe was about. Yes, it made abortion not illegal, but it also again reaffirmed the right to privacy and told busy-bodies in teh legislature where to stick it


Eh, I'd rather have my right to privacy violated than other's right to life violated. I tend to place others above myself, as opposed to the selfish, irresponsible people who don't ;)

Eh, I'd rather have my right to privacy violated than other's right to life violated. I tend to place others above myself, as opposed to the selfish, irresponsible people who don't ;)
lol, is this the same group of people that hate Social Security because they can't stand the fact of helping poor/old people? :confused: :D

wow :rolleyes:


I remember a collection of signatures from people who were handicapped. It was a letter stating how they were apalled at the thought of being aborted simply because they were handicapped. I tend to agree with them. Aborting handicapped individuals sounds an awful like like eugenics to me, and we all know what Nazi Germany had to say about that.... (I willingly Godwin this thread, for it is just!)

lol, is this the same group of people that hate Social Security because they can't stand the fact of helping poor/old people?



Umm....no. I'm not a full Republican, I just picked the lesser of two evils. As I've said before, I'm a Christian Socialist which would put a major emphasis on care of the elderly.

Eh, I'd rather have my right to privacy violated than other's right to life violated. I tend to place others above myself, as opposed to the selfish, irresponsible people who don't ;)
you place others above yourself yet you fight to invade their privacy for your own selfish purposes and beliefs?

I declare you pwned.

Ihatevacations']I don't = the rightwing controlled government doesn't need a go-ahead to do more crazy shit with by the overturnment of any case dealing with the right to privacy, which is what Roe was about. Yes, it made abortion not illegal, but it also again reaffirmed the right to privacy and told busy-bodies in teh legislature where to stick it


maybe you should go interview a bunch of paraplegics and see how people that are actually effected by it think and not faking empathy to gain the moral highground.



I HAVE heard what para/quadraplegics have to say on the issue, and they are thankful for their life! The very thought that people would want to abort them makes my blood boil!!!!!! :mad:

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.


Hmmmm... intresting idea. I must say, I don't support it, but I'm pro choice anyway. But it will be fun to see the "culture of life" people backpedal when faced with rising taxes.

Ihatevacations']you place others above yourself yet you fight to invade their privacy for your own selfish purposes and beliefs?

I declare you pwned.



You hypocrite! Consider the child! You're violating his/her right to life in the name of "protecting privacy"!!! Well, sticking a suction device into its abode certainly isn't respecting privacy!!

You hypocrite! Consider the child! You're violating his/her right to life in the name of "protecting privacy"!!! Well, sticking a suction device into its abode certainly isn't respecting privacy!!

It is not human. It does not have the right to life while it is a parasite.

I give you Umbert the Unborn (www.umberttheunborn.com) ! One more reason abortion should be legal. :p

You hypocrite! Consider the child! You're violating his/her right to life in the name of "protecting privacy"!!! Well, sticking a suction device into its abode certainly isn't respecting privacy!!
you make the baseless claim that a fetus at any time, including at a time without: brain functions, heartbeat, or any other essentials of life is a human and has the right to life, though it is not alive. Nor does it have the right to privacy, children do not have a right to privacy; their parents hold that right for them. You selfish personal beliefs do not give you the right nor the ability to declare the right to privacy null and void because they might being doing something YOUR morals declare wrong, but not theirs

Heres an idea- Try not having one night stands! OMG! to bad you NEED that penis filling a crevice in your pelvic region. Other wise this wouldn't even be an issue Really Is sex more important than A childs life? People sicken me by fullfilling there own desireis and then killing a defenseless child.Greedy pricks.

It is not human. It does not have the right to life while it is a parasite.



Parasite? What an enlightened view :rolleyes:

Seriously, whatever happened to compassion? This is part of why I support Republicans over Democrats: You need to show some CONSISTENCY!!!! How can one claim to be the party of the little guy when you abort the little guy!?

Heres an idea- Try not having one night stands! OMG! to bad you NEED that penis filling a crevice in your pelvic region. Other wise this wouldn't even be an issue Really Is sex more important than A childs life? People sicken me by fullfilling there own desireis and then killing a defenseless child.Greedy pricks.


My point exactly! How a person could be so selfish and inhumane that they put a moment of pleasure above the life of a fellow mortal is beyond me!

Parasite? What an enlightened view :rolleyes:

Were you going to prove to me that it isn't a parasite?

Heres an idea- Try not having one night stands! OMG! to bad you NEED that penis filling a crevice in your pelvic region. Other wise this wouldn't even be an issue Really Is sex more important than A childs life? People sicken me by fullfilling there own desireis and then killing a defenseless child.Greedy pricks.
Accidents happen. Most pregnancies occur when contraception was used.

Parasite? What an enlightened view :rolleyes:

Seriously, whatever happened to compassion? This is part of why I support Republicans over Democrats: You need to show some CONSISTENCY!!!! How can one claim to be the party of the little guy when you abort the little guy!?
Consistency? I am perfectly consistent on my view that christians nor any other religious/faux-moral person has the right to tell other people what they can or can't do based on their own own morals

My point exactly! How a person could be so selfish and inhumane that they put a moment of pleasure above the life of a fellow mortal is beyond me!

So rape is a moment of pleasure? Wow.

Ihatevacations']Consistency? I am perfectly consistent on my view that christians nor any other religious/faux-moral person has the right to tell other people what they can or can't do based on their own own morals



Ok, so you admit to having no compassion? Fine then, I guess my argument falls apart since it presupposes that you aren't evil...

Ok, so you admit to having no compassion? Fine then, I guess my argument falls apart since it presupposes that you aren't evil...
Flamebate my dear Rogolia. Watch yourself. Simply because someone does not toe the Judeo-christian moral line does not mean they have no morals or compassion.

Ok, so you admit to having no compassion? Fine then, I guess my argument falls apart since it presupposes that you aren't evil...
And my argument falls apart because a precondition to it staying together is that it is not used against an idealogue

So rape is a moment of pleasure? Wow.



The majority of abortions occur because the person simply doesn't want or can't afford the baby. Rape comprises very little of it...

The majority of abortions occur because the person simply doesn't want or can't afford the baby. Rape comprises very little of it...
can you provide evidence to support said theory?

The majority of abortions occur because the person simply doesn't want or can't afford the baby. Rape comprises very little of it...

I'm sorry, were you going to answer my question or just "forget" about it?

Prove to me that the thing is not a parasite.

Ihatevacations']And my argument falls apart because a precondition to it staying together is that it is not used against an idealogue



Next time, before attempting to claim the moral highground, remember this: At least I don't value pleasure above human life. I think they have a word for people like this: Sadist.

Next time, before attempting to claim the moral highground, remember this.
that you are an idealogue? aye aye cap'n

At least I don't value pleasure above human life. I think they have a word for people like this: Sadist.
Now that you added that and I liked my original reply - I value human life just fine, I value it so much I support tis protection from faux-morality and religious extremism

The majority of abortions occur because the person simply doesn't want or can't afford the baby. Rape comprises very little of it...

For can't afford, it's better that the mom and baby starve, than that one survives happily? And for those who just don't want it, yeah, they don't get abortions. It's not our fault you changed your mind.

I'm sorry, were you going to answer my question or just "forget" about it?

Prove to me that the thing is not a parasite.



Would you kill a Siamese twin because he's "leeching off your nutrients"? Answer that one.

Flamebate my dear Rogolia. Watch yourself. Simply because someone does not toe the Judeo-christian moral line does not mean they have no morals or compassion.


But I thought everyone agreed that killing someone who didn't threaten your life was wrong?

Would you kill a Siamese twin because he's "leeching off your nutrients"? Answer that one.


Answer my question. If you really MUST try and evade it (albeit poorly), at least use something that bears some relavence, hm?

Would you kill a Siamese twin because he's "leeching off your nutrients"? Answer that one.
oh man, I could so respond to that but I'm sure no one would appreciate my sarcasm

But I thought everyone agreed that killing someone who didn't threaten your life was wrong?
Did you jsut AGAIN assert something that something, at the point I am talking about has no: brain functions; heart beat; or any other prerequisite for being alive, is alive?

Ihatevacations']can you provide evidence to support said theory?


I think, in another abortion thread anyway, someone did provide the statistics. Does anyone remember? It wasn't too favorable for your side...

I think, in another abortion thread anyway, someone did provide the statistics. Does anyone remember? It wasn't too favorable for your side...
irrelevant, I asked if you have scientific proof

Ihatevacations']oh man, I could so respond to that but I'm sure no one would appreciate my sarcasm


Did you jsut AGAIN assert something that something, at the point I am talking about has no: brain functions; heart beat; or any other prerequisite for being alive, is alive?


The heart and brain are among the first things to develop. This is where the arguments for abortions after the first few weeks fall apart.

Would you kill a Siamese twin because he's "leeching off your nutrients"? Answer that one.

A siamese twin has a fully developed personality and body. They share a couple of major, or even just minor, organs. One does not leech off of the other.

Ihatevacations']irrelevant, I asked if you have scientific proof


You asked for proof citing the intentions of people getting abortions. At least get the question you want answered straight.

You asked for proof citing the intentions of people getting abortions. At least get the question you want answered straight.

You said you already had proof, though, so I suggest you show it.

Oh, and you're still ignoring my question.

A siamese twin has a fully developed personality and body. They share a couple of major, or even just minor, organs. One does not leech off of the other.


This is presupposing that the "Blank Slate" philosophy is true. I, for one, agree with the scientific evidence stating that much of the personality is genetic, and therefore develops in the womb.

Even so, the twins share nutrients. What if one twin doesn't like the idea of the other getting some of them? Just like someone wanting an abortion doesn't like the idea of another person sharing her nutrients? Don't throw parasite around so loosely, it applies to many cases...

You said you already had proof, though, so I suggest you show it.

Oh, and you're still ignoring my question.



Please check who I'm quoting first.

The heart and brain are among the first things to develop. This is where the arguments for abortions after the first few weeks fall apart.
so then you are, in addition to your assertion, making the assumption about what I am arguing for more or less specifically?

You asked for proof citing the intentions of people getting abortions. At least get the question you want answered straight.
Then intentions? The intention is to get an abortion, the question is why

This is presupposing that the "Blank Slate" philosophy is true. I, for one, agree with the scientific evidence stating that much of the personality is genetic, and therefore develops in the womb.

Even so, the twins share nutrients. What if one twin doesn't like the idea of the other getting some of them? Just like someone wanting an abortion doesn't like the idea of another person sharing her nutrients? Don't throw parasite around so loosely, it applies to many cases...

par·a·site
n.

An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Doesn't seem to me that that applies to Siamese twins. Seems to me that Siamese are more symbiotic that parasitic.

Ihatevacations']so then you are, in addition to your assertion, making the assumption about what I am arguing for more or less specifically?


Then intentions? The intention is to get an abortion, the question is why


I'm making the assumption that you're in support of abortions past the first few weeks. Like most abortion advocates. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Please check who I'm quoting first.

I did. Perhaps you did not?

Doesn't seem to me that that applies to Siamese twins. Seems to me that Siamese are more symbiotic that parasitic.


What if one Siamese twin had organs necessary for the both of them, but the other just had organs necessary for his/her own survival? Would you call the one who doesn't contribute a parasite?

I did. Perhaps you did not?


I was talking to Ihatevactions, which you would have noticed if you did check. Anyway, what was your question?

What if one Siamese twin had organs necessary for the both of them, but the other just had organs necessary for his/her own survival? Would you call the one who doesn't contribute a parasite?

I'd say they were evading my question rather poorly, after that I'd probably write them off as a hypocrite who wasn't worth trying to debate with.

if those who want it, support raising taxes to fully pay for those children who would have been aborted.

You want the children, you pay for them.
Taking a page out of your book, I'll support the legalization of Partial Birth Abortion if the women getting it done for reasons other than their immediate physical safety have to put it in a jar of formaldehyde and keep it in their bedroom for 18 years. They must keep it in plain sight and not cover it with anything. If they violate this they should go to prison for the remainder of the time period and have to learn how to knit baby clothes while in prison.

I'm making the assumption that you're in support of abortions past the first few weeks. Like most abortion advocates. Correct me if I'm wrong.
i'm support the right of women to have abortions as part of their right to have private lives. I support intelligent limits on said right

I'd say they were evading my question rather poorly, after that I'd probably write them off as a hypocrite who wasn't worth trying to debate with.



Yes, when faced with a question one cannot answer without appearing to be sadistic, let's accuse the person who posited the question as evading another question or let's append some nasty epithets such as hypocrite to them. Sorry, it won't work. Do you or do you not think a parasitic Siamese twin is deserving of life?

Yes, when faced with a question one cannot answer without appearing to be sadistic, let's accuse the person who posited the question as evading another question or let's append some nasty epithets such as hypocrite to them. Sorry, it won't work. Do you or do you not think a parasitic Siamese twin is deserving of life?
one siamese twin is no more parasitic than the other. They both survive, in the case of siamese twins sharing vital organs, by sharing the said organs. In that case, neither can live seperated because of the sharing of the organ. One is not leeching off another ones life, they both require the same thing to live, they are more of a symbiosis. A parasite lives by leeching off the life of another thing.

Ihatevacations']one siamese twin is no more parasitic than the other. They both survive, in the case of siamese twins sharing vital organs, by sharing the said organs. In that case, neither can live seperated because of the sharing of the organ. One is not leeching off another ones life, they both require the same thing to live, they are more of a symbiosis. A parasite lives by leeching off the life of another thing.


But the organ has to be in the body of one of the twins. The owner of said organ is the only one making a contribution in the relationship.

I think most people drawn to an abortion debate will know exactly what Roe v. Wade is.

Ummm not a clue... I assume it was a court thing in the US... But conviently I'm not there...


Would I support the illegalization of abortion? On what grounds, and how could I? Theres no basis...

#1. I am not the person who's body it is. So telling a person they have to go to term against their will, or even detriment to health is a violation of the UN Charter, And the rights of pretty much every democracy in the world.

#2. Do we need excess disposible, unloved population? Only if your a fascist or other nutjob.

#3. Women will simply leave to get abortions in democractic countries anyways, or have them preformed illegally... Some communities will likely arm themselves to protect against relgious fanatics. No doubt this will simply just cause too much bloodshed. Fanatics are fanatics for a reason...

#4. You have way to many problems with the people already alive and sentient. To worry about a grouping of stem cells that could become a human in time is so backwards thinking... Any human born under these conditions would have recourse to sue the federal government for their BIRTH. As you were forced to be born, forced into hardship from day one, as an unwanted child. Since you were FORCED to be birthed and were not protected by a welfare state or any social services, in a warlike country which is lagging behind all of europe in the safety and security of its citizens. Everyone could sue, and will... The United States is simply a scandal when you compare its wealth vs how it helps its citizens.

#5. Doing this will supply more fodder for the future wars of the American Empire and sets back womens rights by about 1 million years. Both of which are aborrent. So, on that basis, it is immoral aswell.

I can't see a "reasonable" way to validate it...


But, likely someone will claim some invisible guy said so... And then rationality leaves the human sphere...

But the organ has to be in the body of one of the twins. The owner of said organ is the only one making a contribution in the relationship.
did you not understand when I said shared organ? twins can be connected at a ponit that they LITERALLY share a vital organ

I agree, my slaves working in my fields are MY PROPERTY and I can do with them as I please. Let's have some GOD DAMN RESPECT OF PRIVACY here, C'mon! Why do ANY of you care what I do with the negroes that sleep in my shed? I'm sick of all you religious nut jobs telling me I can have slaves or slap them around and what not. I OWN THEM, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS... NEGROES ARE NOT HUMAN!

I mean, if they were humans, they wouldn't be so unruly, stupid, and living in my shed now would they? They can't even speak correctly.

[/sarcasm]

Sure, personally I oppose slavery, but who am I to dictate what is right and wrong to other people?

Would any of the pro-abortion advocates like to stay philosophically consistent and advocate slavery under the privacy clause that abortion gets by on?

If not, at least check out my full opinion on the topic...

http://www.snipehunters.com/index.php?page=essay&num=26

Taking a page out of your book, I'll support the legalization of Partial Birth Abortion if the women getting it done for reasons other than their immediate physical safety have to put it in a jar of formaldehyde and keep it in their bedroom for 18 years. They must keep it in plain sight and not cover it with anything. If they violate this they should go to prison for the remainder of the time period and have to learn how to knit baby clothes while in prison.

Eww... Sicko.

Partial Birthed Abortions... Never heard of them... Kinda gross sounding... I'm sure they are medically nescessary in some situations to save the mother, but still. Eww...

Perhaps maybe you should learn to be ... umm... reasonable? If it makes you so mad, then try and tlak about your issues with a psychatrist, cause really, your only beating up on pregnant people who probably felt they had no choice and sleep every night thinking if they made a mistake...

Sheesh... compassion?

Ummm not a clue... I assume it was a court thing in the US... But conviently I'm not there...


Would I support the illegalization of abortion? On what grounds, and how could I? Theres no basis...

#1. I am not the person who's body it is. So telling a person they have to go to term against their will, or even detriment to health is a violation of the UN Charter, And the rights of pretty much every democracy in the world.

#2. Do we need excess disposible, unloved population? Only if your a fascist or other nutjob.

#3. Women will simply leave to get abortions in democractic countries anyways, or have them preformed illegally... Some communities will likely arm themselves to protect against relgious fanatics. No doubt this will simply just cause too much bloodshed. Fanatics are fanatics for a reason...

#4. You have way to many problems with the people already alive and sentient. To worry about a grouping of stem cells that could become a human in time is so backwards thinking... Any human born under these conditions would have recourse to sue the federal government for their BIRTH. As you were forced to be born, forced into hardship from day one, as an unwanted child. Since you were FORCED to be birthed and were not protected by a welfare state or any social services, in a warlike country which is lagging behind all of europe in the safety and security of its citizens. Everyone could sue, and will... The United States is simply a scandal when you compare its wealth vs how it helps its citizens.

#5. Doing this will supply more fodder for the future wars of the American Empire and sets back womens rights by about 1 million years. Both of which are aborrent. So, on that basis, it is immoral aswell.

I can't see a "reasonable" way to validate it...


But, likely someone will claim some invisible guy said so... And then rationality leaves the human sphere...




I think killing a person would be more of a violation of health rights than would forcing them to be responsible for their actions :rolleyes:


Secularists and Humanists spend so much time constructing arguments as to why one can be atheist and still be moral, and then people like you come along and smear their credibility. For shame!

I agree, my slaves working in my fields are MY PROPERTY and I can do with them as I please. Let's have some GOD DAMN RESPECT OF PRIVACY here, C'mon! Why do ANY of you care what I do with the negroes that sleep in my shed? I'm sick of all you religious nut jobs telling me I can have slaves or slap them around and what not. I OWN THEM, THEY HAVE NO RIGHTS... NEGROES ARE NOT HUMAN!

I mean, if they were humans, they wouldn't be so unruly, stupid, and living in my shed now would they? They can't even speak correctly.

[/sarcasm]

Sure, personally I oppose slavery, but who am I to dictate what is right and wrong to other people?

Would any of the pro-abortion advocates like to stay philosophically consistent and advocate slavery under the privacy clause that abortion gets by on?

If not, at least check out my full opinion on the topic...

http://www.snipehunters.com/index.php?page=essay&num=26
We must use rational limits to things and not moral ones

It's rational to believe that something which contains unique human dna, 46 chromosomes and is developing on the same pattern as all previous human beings in the existance of humans is, in fact, a human. Arbitrarily saying life starts when you change location from womb to operating table is not rational, sir.

It's rational to believe that something which contains unique human dna, 46 chromosomes and is developing on the same pattern as all previous human beings in the existance of humans is, in fact, a human. Arbitrarily saying life starts when you change location from womb to operating table is not rational, sir.
I declare you an assumptionist!

Ihatevacations']We must use rational limits to things and not moral ones



Throw ethics out the window and you're no longer human.

Throw ethics out the window and you're no longer human.
and whose ethics shall we use praytell? Christian? Muslim? African pygmy tribe?

Ihatevacations']I declare you an assumptionist!

So, I've provided evidence of it being a human being, the other side says they're not human because of arbitrary semantics and I'm the assumptionst?

Well, I'd much rather be an assumptionist than whatever it is those people who believe a child in the womb is not a human are.

Ihatevacations']and whose ethics shall we use praytell? Christian? Muslim? African pygmy tribe?



You SHOULD use Christian :D

But since you won't accept that answer, there is such a thing as secular ethics, is there not? I'm sure many of the atheists on this forum would say so. After all, being an evil scientist madman tends to backfire when your abominable creation devours you alive :D

Ihatevacations']and whose ethics shall we use praytell? Christian? Muslim? African pygmy tribe?

The only ethic I'm advocating is the guarenteed right to life of all human beings. In fact, it's a major cornerstone of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

I think it's more than reasonable to apply the ethics and maxims that the country was founed on.

So, I've provided evidence of it being a human being, the other side says they're not human because of arbitrary semantics and I'm the assumptionst?

Well, I'd much rather be an assumptionist than whatever it is those people who believe a child in the womb is not a human are.
your an assumptionist because you assumed where I declare life. which I have been discussing with regolia for hte past two pages


The only ethic I'm advocating is the guarenteed right to life of all human beings. In fact, it's a major cornerstone of the United States Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The declaration of independence is not a legal document and the constitution says nothing of the right to life. You are given the right to live in society as an individual, including privacy

Eww... Sicko.

Partial Birthed Abortions... Never heard of them... Kinda gross sounding... I'm sure they are medically nescessary in some situations to save the mother, but still. Eww...

Perhaps maybe you should learn to be ... umm... reasonable? If it makes you so mad, then try and tlak about your issues with a psychatrist, cause really, your only beating up on pregnant people who probably felt they had no choice and sleep every night thinking if they made a mistake...

Sheesh... compassion?
PBA's are, essentially, third trimester abortions. That means, with US medical care at least, that the baby is a viable newborn. It can survive outside it's mothers womb. The woman's had 6 months to decide beforehand. 5 of which she probably knew she was pregnant. She can damn well stick it out for the last 3 months.

You SHOULD use Christian :D

But since you won't accept that answer, there is such a thing as secular ethics, is there not? I'm sure many of the atheists on this forum would say so. After all, being an evil scientist madman tends to backfire when your abominable creation devours you alive :D

Aren't we supossed to love people no matter what? Calling someone evil and stupid, and ignoring every point they make because of it isn't very loving.

Aren't we supossed to love people no matter what? Calling someone evil and stupid, and ignoring every point they make because of it isn't very loving.



Eh, I'm sure I remember reading something about rebuking evil...and love does not mean total acceptance of wickedness, suprising as it may sound. It is my love of children that leads me to speak out against this neo-Holocaust.

Ihatevacations']your an assumptionist because you assumed where I declare life. which I have been discussing with regolia for hte past two pages
If you notice I say "the other side" not neccessarily you. I looked back and saw, however, that your argument is just a fairly standardized argument about the semantics of what it means to be "alive". Which really just comes down to trying to justify murder, without any shred of proof, for the sake of convienience.


Ihatevacations']The declaration of independence is not a legal document and the constitution says nothing of the right to life. You are given the right to live in society as an individual, including privacy
I'm not sure what you mean when you say the DoI is not a "legal" document. I'm assuming you mean because it was signed before the country actually existed. Again, semantics. I was merely stating where we should cull our ethics from. If you are suggesting that there is no right to life, I question why you make any other argument than that? Kill anyone, anywhere at any time.

The most curious part of your post is that, the 14th ammendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Hmmm.

ethics are seperate from religion. Ethics are supposedly developed between the ages of six and ten, but anyone who can callously take a human life, with total disregard to even the simplest of human emotion obviously is an exception to this. If a woman has the right to kill a child at 6weeks, what makes that different from 6 years, or 10, or 17? They may be older but by ur claims, its my body i can do what i want with it, legally you are the guardian until the age of 18, so what is stopping the mother from deciding one day, "hmmmm Tom is really annoying today, where did i leave that cleaver?" And as for abortion doctors, didn't they take the hypocratic oath, an oath to protect and save lives, not end them. And you know what if you don't want a child go out and get a condom, there like 50cent at the local gas station, or a a pack of 50 for ten bucks at convienant store. And then there is adoption, so there is no need for an abortion. oh and if the mother is in danger, Darwin would say shame on the mother, her generation is over, it is about the survival of the young.

Eh, I'm sure I remember reading something about rebuking evil...and love does not mean total acceptance of wickedness, suprising as it may sound. It is my love of children that leads me to speak out against this neo-Holocaust.

Neo-Holocaust? Must. Contain. Laughter. I sure know I would want to live a life where nobody loved me, or I was slowly starving to death. Those are great lives, aren't they? Or a life where I would never be able to move, or smell, or taste. And I would LOVE to have Tay-Sach Disease. Who doesn't like going blind and paralyzed, and losing all their motor skills before finally dying at age 3. And I would love to be scrapped out of a womb with a coat hanger, or to be strangled and left in a garbage can.

Sure he can believe it and live by it on his own terms but he can't make other people live by those terms aswell.

End of.


Bingo!

If you notice I say "the other side" not neccessarily you. I looked back and saw, however, that your argument is just a fairly standardized argument about the semantics of what it means to be "alive". Which really just comes down to trying to justify murder, without any shred of proof, for the sake of convienience.
you can't murder something that does nto have any semblance of life.


I'm not sure what you mean when you say the DoI is not a "legal" document.
How hard is it to under stand that it is not a "legal document." It is jsut a fancy piece of our countries history, it has no legal basis and if you try to argue something based on it you would be laughed from court

The most curious part of your post is that, the 14th ammendment states "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Hmmm.
due process clause, i've seen it. you have the right to live in society

Neo-Holocaust? Must. Contain. Laughter. I sure know I would want to live a life where nobody loved me, or I was slowly starving to death. Those are great lives, aren't they? Or a life where I would never be able to move, or smell, or taste. And I would LOVE to have Tay-Sach Disease. Who doesn't like going blind and paralyzed, and losing all their motor skills before finally dieng at age 3. And I would love to be scrapped out of a womb with a coat hanger, or to be strangled and left in a garbage can.



Hmm, how about we let the PERSON IN QUESTION decide whether they want to live or die, instead of someone else? Would you like it if I decided you wanted to die and had you put to death without your input? You're last sentence describes something known as a "crime". Those who commit said acts are called "criminals". We have something called "punishments" for them.

Ihatevacations']you can't murder something that does nto have any semblance of life.


How hard is it to under stand that it is not a "legal document." It is jsut a fancy piece of our countries history, it has no legal basis and if you try to argue something based on it you would be laughed from court


due process clause, i've seen it. you have the right to live in society


Heart: Check

Brain: Check

Perception of pain: Check



Sounds like life to me.

You SHOULD use Christian :D

But since you won't accept that answer, there is such a thing as secular ethics, is there not? I'm sure many of the atheists on this forum would say so. After all, being an evil scientist madman tends to backfire when your abominable creation devours you alive :D
Wow, you're a retard.

I'm glad I know a couple of sane Christians (unlike yourself) to keep me in check and not want to go out and destroy this last bastion of fantasy called religion, like a loving Catholic (holy fuck!) girlfriend that loves me for who I am and not in what I hold faith.

Save me your "BUT CATHOLIKS ARENT REEL CHRISTIANS LOL!!!" bullshit, mainly because I wouldn't want you to waste your ardent pro-life energy, especially when I'm going to be seeing a lot more of "Neo Rogolia is on your ignore list" messages now.

Alright, this is my opinion.

If you are a man, shut up. If you are a woman, say something. I would say about 10% of the debate comes from women. I say men should have no say in this matter.

Alright, how about this?

Say that women want men to have their testies injected with some liquid to stop production of sperm for a month, and could possibley damage them in the count later on. Mostly women are debating this, while men watch. Same case.

I say this is a woman's issue, and every single man should shut the f- up (excuse my language). I am pro-choise and a man, yes. Why am I pro-choise? Cause nearly every woman asked about it says they are also. Otherwise, I would say nothing.

I look at it this way:

Those who will get an abortion will get it illegally or legally, which ever, Those who won't, won't. It is like marijuana. Those who will do it illegally or legally will still, and those who won't won't. Simple fact.

If only everyone had the same views as me, the world might be a better (unorthadox and insane) place.

A fetus developing inside the womb has MANY signs of life. If you don't chose to recognize those, or are unaware of them, I don't feel continuing this discussion is warranted.

I see this is the crux of our debate, because I'm under the impression that if you recognized a child in the womb as a human being, there would be no debate, abortion would have to be illegal? I know I am an "assumptionist" but am I incorrect on that?

Alright, this is my opinion.

If you are a man, shut up. If you are a woman, say something. I would say about 10% of the debate comes from women. I say men should have no say in this matter.

Alright, how about this?

Say that women want men to have their testies injected with some liquid to stop production of sperm for a month, and could possibley damage them in the count later on. Mostly women are debating this, while men watch. Same case.

I say this is a woman's issue, and every single man should shut the f- up (excuse my language). I am pro-choise and a man, yes. Why am I pro-choise? Cause nearly every woman asked about it says they are also. Otherwise, I would say nothing.

I look at it this way:

Those who will get an abortion will get it illegally or legally, which ever, Those who won't, won't. It is like marijuana. Those who will do it illegally or legally will still, and those who won't won't. Simple fact.

If only everyone had the same views as me, the world might be a better (unorthadox and insane) place.



Then I automatically win! Go me! :D

Heart: Check

Brain: Check

Perception of pain: Check



Sounds like life to me.
brain and heart: not until around 8 weeks.

Wow, you're a retard.

I'm glad I know a couple of sane Christians (unlike yourself) to keep me in check and not want to go out and destroy this last bastion of fantasy called religion, like a loving Catholic (holy fuck!) girlfriend that loves me for who I am and not in what I hold faith.

Save me your "BUT CATHOLIKS ARENT REEL CHRISTIANS LOL!!!" bullshit, mainly because I wouldn't want you to waste your ardent pro-life energy, especially when I'm going to be seeing a lot more of "Neo Rogolia is on your ignore list" messages now.




I think you'll be seeing more "You do not have access rights to this forum" messages for outright flaming ;)

Ihatevacations']brain and heart: not until around 8 weeks.



Many abortions occur after 8 weeks.

Then I automatically win! Go me! :D


Just out of curiousity Neo, what is your stance on contraceptives?

Many abortions occur after 8 weeks.
irrelevant to my point. unless you want to tell me what I am arguing some more

Just out of curiousity Neo, what is your stance on contraceptives?


When an embryo is observable, that is when it becomes murder. Contraceptives and the morning-after pill, however, are fair game.

I would second that to some extend. But I would opt for abortion remaining legal in extreme cases (health risks for the mother, rape-victims, etc.)
Why are rape victims such a special case?! Is it less of a life because it was concived via rape? The emotional scaring is going to be there nine months later anyway so why try to hide a wrong by making another wrong?

Hm, can't we just put stuff in the water...seriously. It would solve the over population problem too. (This is comming from the "it will work itself outist" party member)

Alright, this is my opinion.

If you are a man, shut up. If you are a woman, say something. I would say about 10% of the debate comes from women. I say men should have no say in this matter.

Say that women want men to have their testies injected with some liquid to stop production of sperm for a month, and could possibley damage them in the count later on. Mostly women are debating this, while men watch. Same case.

I say this is a woman's issue, and every single man should shut the f- up (excuse my language). I am pro-choise and a man, yes. Why am I pro-choise? Cause nearly every woman asked about it says they are also. Otherwise, I would say nothing.

I've heard this opinion often and just want to comment on it's absurdity. Just because an issue doesn't DIRECTLY effect me doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on it. If this were true...

Because I am white, I cannot oppose slavery
Because I am a man, I cannot oppose rape.
Because I live in the U.S., I cannot oppose genocide out of the U.S.

Even if you don't believe that, even if abortion doesn't directly affect me, the establishment/lack thereof of a right to life will indirectly affect me as well.

Either way, I should have a say in important matters!


If only everyone had the same views as me, the world might be a better (unorthadox and insane) place.
... I'm assuming this is a joke. Assuming and hoping :)

I've heard this opinion often and just want to comment on it's absurdity. Just because an issue doesn't DIRECTLY effect me doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on it. If this were true...

Because I am white, I cannot oppose slavery
Because I am a man, I cannot oppose rape.
Because I live in the U.S., I cannot oppose genocide out of the U.S.

Even if you don't believe that, even if abortion doesn't directly affect me, the establishment/lack thereof of a right to life will indirectly affect me as well.

Either way, I should have a say in important matters!


... I'm assuming this is a joke. Assuming and hoping :)


Whether it is absurd or not, until Sinuhue or Cabra jump in, I'm automatically right and I like that :D

In a sense. Pro-lifers seem to believe that if we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will become illegal. This is not the case. It will simply return the matter to the states. And contrary to what many pro-lifers hope, a few states will legalize abortions. This will cause the more rabid pro-lifers to clamor for some kind of federal law banning abortions, and that will put the current administration (and future conservative administrations) in a bind. They will either have to appease their Christian base and ban abortions or stay true to their small government, state's-rights stance. They will have to make a choice, because their own supporters will press the issue. It's sort of the same debate as you see over gay marriage. They claim to be staunch supporters of state's rights, but when a state makes a decision that is contrary to their beliefs, they start talk about overruling that decision at the federal level. I think it will expose them as awful hypocrites.
LOL you Bastard! :p ;)

In a sense. Pro-lifers seem to believe that if we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will become illegal. This is not the case. It will simply return the matter to the states. And contrary to what many pro-lifers hope, a few states will legalize abortions. This will cause the more rabid pro-lifers to clamor for some kind of federal law banning abortions, and that will put the current administration (and future conservative administrations) in a bind. They will either have to appease their Christian base and ban abortions or stay true to their small government, state's-rights stance. They will have to make a choice, because their own supporters will press the issue. It's sort of the same debate as you see over gay marriage. They claim to be staunch supporters of state's rights, but when a state makes a decision that is contrary to their beliefs, they start talk about overruling that decision at the federal level. I think it will expose them as awful hypocrites.
LOL you Bastard! :p ;)

When an embryo is observable, that is when it becomes murder. Contraceptives and the morning-after pill, however, are fair game.

Good deal. For a moment there you sounded like one who would be against all forms of contraception. Sorry for the assumption and kudos to you.

Heart: Check

Brain: Check

Perception of pain: Check



Sounds like life to me.

Hope you don't eat cows. you might go to hell.

Hope you don't eat cows. you might go to hell.



Fine, one addition:


Soul: Check

Abortion in my opinion is totally wrong, reason being its MURDER. Whether the ybe in the beginning stages or 8 months into it, its wrong. If the women does not want the child, have the child and give it up for adoption, someone will want it. If you were too dumb to do use a condom, thats your own stupid fault, SUCk IT UP!! If you are a rape victim, have the child and get rid of it to an adoption agency, its not that hard. :sniper:

Abortion in my opinion is totally wrong, reason being its MURDER. Whether they be in the beginning stages or 8 months into it, its wrong. If the women does not want the child, have the child and give it up for adoption, someone will want it. If you were too dumb to do use a condom, thats your own stupid fault, SUCK IT UP!! If you are a rape victim, have the child and get rid of it to an adoption agency, its not that hard. :sniper:

I find it very difficult to understand both sides of this issue and come to my own conclusion. Mainly because both sides tend to argue from rights. Pro-lifers talk about the right of the fetus and pro-choicers talk about the rights of the woman.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the distribution of rights appears to be completely arbitrary and everyone seems to disagree on who has what rights.

So my current position is

If abortion is wrong, there must be a large-scale system that provides financial compensation for the woman for the time she is unable to work, education (about child-rearing) to the parents and financial support if they choose to raise the child, as well as alternative guardians and accomodation for the child if they don't. This must be free of charge, so it would require significant funding to make it accessable to all and of a suitable standard. This means taxes.
Once such a system is running you can restrict abortions, providing contraception is freely available to all.

If abortions are wrong after a certain point (Eg, after the fetus is conscious of pain) then make them completely legal until that point, and provide accurate pregnancy tests to any woman anonymously and free of charge.

If abortions are not wrong, then it's a non-issue.

Firstly, I'd like to suggest my opinion. But before I do, I'd also like to state some of my premisies.
-Premise 1 : A human being can, under most, if not all, western charters, deal with their property in any which manner they like that is is not harmful to any other human beings or in a manner that does not defy other rights and freedoms of any human being.
-Premise 2 : The common understanding of Human, is not based on what is only something that is biological, and not exactly something that is spiritual but mostly, something that is mental. Simply, a Human being is a creature of our genus, that is capable of individual thought and bodily controll.
**What I mean by individual thought was that it must be able to have a sense of awareness, and pressence as a Person (please don't start with what makes a person, here, an example -->). Aside from the biological standpoint, a robot with an AI, like 2001: a space odessys' HAL, might be the next form of human.**

Based on the second premise alone, I conclude that a Fetus is not human being, regardless of heart, brain and reception to pain, Because untill the umbelical cord is cut, it continues to live by the parasite relationship with the female Human host.

Based on all of the above, I argue that a woman can, and should be allowed to have the right to abort her unborn child, if she wills it. This is my understanding of a rational point of view.

But as soon as this point is made, I know someone will ask, won't there be an out break of young couples getting it on before they can even be classified as adults? I know, and if that were to happen, I'll take that freedom right back. I didn't say I was going to ban it, I said I'll take it back, - as in, I'll make the rules. The main reason I wanted a choice is because every couple is different, I know 17 year olds who are both ready, and far from wanting a child. If that is to be the case, I figured that the abortionists shall be the one to make the final call. (I was wondering why no one brought this idea up) Every would-be-mother shall bring herself before an abortionist and they may have a discussion which they will look at the pros and con's of having a baby and then after hearing the circumstances, the abortionists will take the wbm's mindset into consideration and make the last judgement,- which only he has the power to repeal.

I'd be intrested to know who likes this suggestion.

Oh and...
Fine, one addition:


Soul: Check

Remember that new planet of the apes movie? Interesting point was made when one of the apes grabs a human slave and asks another, more compasionate ape, if she could see a soul inside the slave, while the sadistic ape held the jaw open.

I understand that from a Christian standpoint that only a Human has a soul. I don't need to be educated on other Christian premises, I've attended and graduated from a Christian school (congragulate me later). But what I really wanted to attack is your insistence of a soul. Aside from the Bible, can you show me evidence, without a shadow of a doubt of the existence of a soul, more so, that a fetus has one?

I can, if you desire, show you evidence of that everything that takes place in a man/woman, can be explained using biology and psychology.
What, I ask you, will show me that there is a soul, and what does this soul account for?

Would you kill a Siamese twin because he's "leeching off your nutrients"? Answer that one.

Actually, yes, that is being done.


One ethical issue with separation is when the operation will result in the death of one twin (for example, in the case where they are sharing a heart.) A notable case was that of the Attard sisters (Gracie and Rosie), the daughters of Rina and Michaelangelo Attard of the Maltese island of Gozo. Despite the opposition of the Attards, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that the twins should be separated, even though this would (and did in 2001) cause the death of Rosie, the weaker twin.

Most recently, an attempt was made to separate the German conjoined twins Lea and Tabea Block. Tabea died September 16, 2004 just minutes after having been separated from her twin sister.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins


If it is a parastic twin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_twin) , a scenarion which would be closer to human fetal state, then it will be removed in any case, as long as the removal won't affect the health of the remaining twin.

Fine, one addition:


Soul: Check

If you can prove the soul exists then fine, if not, thats rather pointless...

If you can prove the soul exists then fine, if not, thats rather pointless...


...If not, Neo's going to have to fall back to another argument. The point would have been, as far as observed, it does not comply with the current understanding of what a Human is.

two things

1) I don't buy the argument that just because, if left alone, a fetus will grow into a human being, means that a fetus is the same as a human being. It's not the same. If I get fired, I'm not loosing my job as an established employee that's been working here for 20 years and has earned benefits. I'm loosing my job as an up-and-coming employee that's worked here one year. You are *not* killing a human, you are killing a potential-human. As for the exact moment, it's not all-or-nothing, the potential-human slowly develops into a human. The morality of "killing" isn't all or nothing, it becomes more and more immoral as the fetus becomes more and more human.

If you argue about the unborn babies rights, I ask about the other unborn babies that never occured because of this one. If I have an unwanted baby this year, I'm unlikely to decide to have a wanted baby next year. What about the rights of that baby which I otherwise would have wanted? It never got a chance!

2) I don't, personally, believe that abortion is a question of whether you're killing the fetus/baby/human. I know that's what people argue, but I personally think it doesn't matter. What *does* matter is the amount of suffering involved. You (whoever posted it) claim that handicapped people speak out and say "I wouldn't have wanted to be aborted". OF COURSE they wouldn't have wanted to be aborted. I wouldn't have wanted to be aborted. However, if they WERE aborted, then they never would have developed to the mental stage where they could decide that they wouldn't have wanted to be aborted. (convoluted sentence, there!)
I wouldn't want to quit my game of golf mid-way through. While playing golf, I'm thinking "wow, I'm sure enjoying this game". If I never started playing golf, however, I'd never have missed it.
If the fetus never develops enough brain functionality to be self-aware, it will never miss being alive. Even if it IS a human (and I'm not saying it is) it will not miss it's life. It's never experienced life (concious life, as we know it). It's not loosing something it ever had. And its abortion just may provide the opportunity for another, wanted, child to take its place. And live a potentially happier life.

When asking the handicapped people if they would have liked to be aborted, how many people who were never born, because their potential parents were raising a handicapped child, did you ask? How many of them would say "I really enjoy life, and am glad I had the chance to be born."

Case in point. My younger brother.
He's a wonderful person. Even back in high school he was volunteering his evenings helping out in soup kitchens. Always ready with a smile and a helping hand, and he really enjoys life. He's smart, doing well for himself, and has recently bought an apartment with his girlfriend. He's markedly made my life better in tangible ways.

Or me.

Now, my parents had decided to have three children. Their second child, sadly, was going to be born with birth defects. He'd never live a "normal" life, would have serious mental problems, and had almost no chance of living past the age of about ten. After *a lot* of anguish my parents decided to abort him. Trust me, neither of them was happy about it. If it's mentioned, my mother still talks about how guilty she feels almost thirty years later!

They decided that an abortion was what was best *for the child*. Please let nobody here be so insulting to these people who I love, please don't suggest that they had an abortion for their own convenience or quality of life, I have seen first-hand how much they are willing to sacrifice for their children.

I sometimes think of what my brother would have been like. I sometimes wonder how much he'd enjoy life, and what he'd do, and if he'd have any hobbies. But it's all speculation, because he never existed. A collection of cells, even a collection of cells with a heartbeat, never contained the personality of the child who would have been formed. At some point it could have, but at the moment of abortion, it didn't. The human being never existed. Just as I never would have existed if that child had been born. I never would have missed not-existing, because I wouldn't have ever been here to miss it.

My parents ended up having me, and my brother. My older sister never had to go through her young years with the stress of having a handicapped brother. She would have handled it well, and I bet she'd have loved him dearly, but it would have been detrimental to her life in many ways.
My parents, despite the anguish of having to decide to abort their potential-child, never had to go through the anguish of their child dying at the age of ten. Myself and my brother got to experience life in it's glory.
I'm sad that this child didn't get to experience life, but if I could take back time and influence my parents decisions, I wouldn't. I'm glad that my brother got to experience life. I don't think the child that was aborted ever was self-aware, and as such I don't think it "lost" anything.

So...yeah, painful story. And probably doesn't count for much, as it's just a personal anecdote. Take it for what it's worth. I'm pro-choice, and I love my parents, and I respect their decision.

:confused: :fluffle: :headbang: :mad: :eek: