NationStates Jolt Archive

Except for rape/incest/health problems?

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)

1) Use birth control
2) If you forget, use morning after
3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:


baby shortage

Because the number of people interested in adopting infants from the United States and Canada exceeds the number of infants in need of adoption, experts have called this problem a "baby shortage."

An estimated one million childless couples in the U.S. under age 44 actively seek to create a pregnancy by visiting infertility specialists; however, it is unknown precisely how many infertile couples are actively interested in and pursuing adoption. The most modest estimates are 100,000. It is known, however, that some number will only be satisfied with a biological child and if they cannot have a biological child, will remain childless.

http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html

4) So?

Edit: This thread is not about if abortion should be made illegal but its about if abortion is redundant or not.

Edit 2: I'm NOT a Xtian, Muslim or Jew.

Because the woman has sole authority to control her body, and if she doesnt want something growing inside her, she has the sole right to remove it.


/thread

*pulls out the fire hose and hooks it to the hydrant*

Ok, I'm ready.

Except for rape/incest/health problems?

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)

1) Use birth control
2) If you forget, use morning after
3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:


http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html

4) So?
Because human beings, male and female, make mistakes and birth control does not always work, and ingestion of massive doses of hormones by females (morning after pill) does not always work and can be dangerous.

Women should not be returned to using knitting needles to self abort, and should have proper MDs perform the procedures so they do not have to return to back-alley abortionists. Why kill women? I view this as a health/medical issue for women, within the context of the right of women to choose to control their bodies and futures where they feel it necessary.

Because the woman has sole authority to control her body, and if she doesnt want something growing inside her, she has the sole right to remove it.


/thread

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?


No, because even while inside of them, the penis is not part of their body.

Dont be dense.

No, because even while inside of them, the penis is not part of their body.

Dont be dense.

Babies arent part of their bodies either. They get out. Dont be dense.

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?

No, but they have the right to get it out.

Because human beings, male and female, make mistakes and birth control does not always work, and ingestion of massive doses of hormones by females (morning after pill) does not always work and can be dangerous.

Women should not be returned to using knitting needles to self abort, and should have proper MDs perform the procedures so they do not have to return to back-alley abortionists. Why kill women?

See number 3 in OP.

Babies arent part of their bodies either. They get out. Dont be dense.

Can the baby survive without the mother for the vast majority of the pregency? Is the baby attatched to the mother?

No and yes, in that order.

Youre above these pitiful pro-life arguements. Dont lower yourself.

No, but they have the right to get it out.

All babies get out eventually.

All babies get out eventually.

The mother has the right to remove it from their body whenever they want, just like they have the right to get the penis out before it ejaculates.

Can the baby survive without the mother for the vast majority of the pregency? Is the baby attatched to the mother?

No and yes, in that order.

Youre above these pitiful pro-life arguements. Dont lower yourself.

No actually. Human children can not survive on their own either. It is illegal to kill them.

Make meaningful arguments.

The mother has the right to remove it from their body whenever they want, just like they have the right to get the penis out before it ejaculates.

Yes but they have no right to kill the penis by cutting it off. This control over insides argument does not make sense.

No actually. Human children can not survive on their own either. It is illegal to kill them.

No, but they can actually breath on their own. And eat on their own. They dont need to literally leech off of a host.

Make meaningful arguments.

Physician heal thyself.

Yes but they have no right to kill the penis by cutting it off. This control over insides argument does not make sense.

No, but just like the penis, they have the right to remove it when they want.

If the fetus dies when the mother wants it out thats just an unfortunate side effect.

No, but they can actually breath on their own. And eat on their own. They dont need to literally leech off of a host.


"Leech off of a host". You need to look up on medical research about the benefits of breast feeding.

And again, you were talking about surviving on one's own. Many humans, children, certain disabled individuals and elderly can not survive on their own.

Is it abortion thread season again already? Spring cannot be far away.

"Leech off of a host". You need to look up on medical research about the benefits of breast feeding.

Babies dont need to breastfeed. An embryo does need to leech.

Look up a parasite.

And again, you were talking about surviving on one's own. Many humans, children, certain disabled individuals and elderly can not survive on their own.

But theyre not a part of another human body either. Its not just one factor.

Is it abortion season again already? Spring cannot be far away.

Just another anti-choicer spewing off the typical "arguements".

All babies get out eventually.

Yeah, but like somebody else's penis, do you have to wait til it's done?

Except for rape/incest/health problems? Nothing necessitating about the word choice.

What we need are willing women to take in fetuses that would otherwise be aborted and have them placed inside their bodies to grow and live.

I think that would please everyone - if we could get enough volunteers.

Yes but they have no right to kill the penis by cutting it off. This control over insides argument does not make sense.

If removing an unwanted penis meant the death of the penis, would you deprive a woman the right to remove an unwanted penis?

Yeah, but like somebody else's penis, do you have to wait til it's done?

No, you dont.

There are side effects to wanting it out early, but oh well.

Why should someone have to carry to term, when they don't want to, in order to provide a child for adoption purposes?

Holding that position means you should never throw food away again, not even peels because there's plenty of people without food.

We chuck it in the bin like everything else we don't want.

It might be nice of someone to carry to term so they can put up for adoption but it's a terrible imposition to enforce on someone.

Keep in mind that earth has about seven times as many humans as it can comfortably support. If things don't change, the malthusian catastrophe will arrive. :(

Also keep in mind that we have one pair of Duggars already -- last thing we need is more of them!

Yes but they have no right to kill the penis by cutting it off. This control over insides argument does not make sense.

They consented to have the penis in them in the first place.


Not so with the child.

Keep in mind that earth has about seven times as many humans as it can comfortably support. If things don't change, the malthusian catastrophe will arrive. :(


Source?

Why should someone have to carry to term, when they don't want to, in order to provide a child for adoption purposes?


Because they are human. Are you comparing human life to peels? Wow.


Holding that position means you should never throw food away again, not even peels because there's plenty of people without food.

We chuck it in the bin like everything else we don't want.

It might be nice of someone to carry to term so they can put up for adoption but it's a terrible imposition to enforce on someone.

If removing an unwanted penis meant the death of the penis, would you deprive a woman the right to remove an unwanted penis?

Unless it was rape at the first place.

Because they are human. Are you comparing human life to peels? Wow.

"Human" in the sense that they arent even self aware when they are usually aborted.

Abortion should be kept legal its a practical issue.
however regulations can be instituted to affect this.
Maybe require the doctor/hospital/clinic do a check for an adoption agency willing to take the child. make the check take no more then 2 to 4 business days. If there is a match the woman should be notified of the adoption agencies terms (most cover prenatal care and others cover rent and food as well) and the woman should be given a choice to sign a adoption contract with the agency.
This should protect a woman's rights while allowing those who want to adopt the chance.

"Human" in the sense that they arent even self aware when they are usually aborted.

so a retarded person who is not self aware can be killed then ?

so a retarded person who is not self aware can be killed then ?

If you think the menatally handicapped arent self aware, you dont know what self aware means.

Come back when you learn basic vocabulary.

Unless it was rape at the first place.

So if you're having sex with a woman who consented and she changes her mind and tells you to stop, she has to wait until you're done because she consented at the beginning? Hmm...

"Human" in the sense that they arent even self aware when they are usually aborted.

What is self awareness? They can certainly feel pain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

For fucks sake, I love how some people also keep trying to make it seem like there is only one reason/arguement.

There is a combination of reasons. Not just one.

As per usual my suggestions are dismissed without comment, possibly ignored.

I think it's because I don't have an avatar. *runs off to get an avatar*

So if you're having sex with a woman who consented and she changes her mind and tells you to stop, she has to wait until you're done because she consented at the beginning? Hmm...

Yes if the penis is gonna die.

But thats a very stupid hypothetical question cause penises dont die and I'm gay.

Because they are human. Are you comparing human life to peels? Wow.

Yup, it's only more important to me because I'm human, if I was a potato I'd be highly offended by your remark.





The point is to ask why someone should be forced to carry to term in order to supply children to someone else?

How can you justifiably impose that on someone, for what reason?

As per usual my suggestions are dismissed without comment, possibly ignored.

I think it's because I don't have an avatar. *runs off to get an avatar*

What was that noise? :confused:

What is self awareness? They can certainly feel pain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

First paragraph of your own source.

Though many researchers in the area of fetal development agree a fetus is unlikely to feel pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy
Not self aware.

What we need are willing women to take in fetuses that would otherwise be aborted and have them placed inside their bodies to grow and live.

I think that would please everyone - if we could get enough volunteers.

That might be something Christ would do. thank you George Carlin

They consented to have the penis in them in the first place.


Not so with the child.

Yes they did with the later. They consented to the child when they consented to have the penis inside them; that is what happens when you have sex, you always carry the risk of pregnancy.

But thats a very stupid hypothetical question cause penises dont die and I'm gay.

Youre the one that started comparing it to penetration.

Yup, it's only more important to me because I'm human, if I was a potato I'd be highly offended by your remark.





The point is to ask why someone should be forced to carry to term in order to supply children to someone else?

How can you justifiably impose that on someone, for what reason?

You missed my point. That wasnt the justification. The justification was that terminating human life is unnecessary even if you do not want it.

Yes they did with the later. They consented to the child when they consented to have the penis inside them; that is what happens when you have sex, you always carry the risk of pregnancy.

Thats a stupid arguement. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregency. I acknowledge the risk of death whenever I cross the street. Does that mean if Im sober, look both ways, etc, and still get hit by a bus I consented to getting hit by a bus?

Youre the one that started comparing it to penetration.

Because u were talking about sole authority over insides.

As per usual my suggestions are dismissed without comment, possibly ignored.Same, and I even have an avatar.

I wonder why the OP painted abortion as 'necessary'. Abortion is not necessary. The choice to have an abortion is what I believe that is necessary.
I would rather he answer this question, what makes it necessary to deprive women of making their own choice?

First paragraph of your own source.


Not self aware.

That was just an example. My qestion was what self awareness was.

Because u were talking about sole authority over insides.

And they still have such. They have the power to remove whatever they dont want inside them. Be it a penis, liver, or fetus.

Besides, the penis is not part of their body. The fetus is.

Do they not have the righ to remove their liver? It can stop working if removed.

You missed my point. That wasnt the justification. The justification was that terminating human life is unnecessary even if you do not want it.

Carrying it to term is equally unnecessary, why are you arguing to force people to do it?

Why should someone have to carry to term, when they don't want to, in order to provide a child for adoption purposes?

Holding that position means you should never throw food away again, not even peels because there's plenty of people without food.

We chuck it in the bin like everything else we don't want.

It might be nice of someone to carry to term so they can put up for adoption but it's a terrible imposition to enforce on someone.
Yes, it is nice that some CHOOSE to follow through with a full-term (9 month) pregnancy and offer their children for adoption, a very tough CHOICE--but I am glad that women also have the CHOICE not to have a child, as no one should force them to do so. If they CHOOSE to abort instead, they should have quality medical care, just like they would if they CHOOSE to carry to term and go the adoption route. Being pregnant can impact on jobs, other family members and children, finances and many things, and it is ultimately a choice the woman must make, not the man, not the religious right, not the country, state or world.

Women are not baby incubators. They have the right to bodily integrity and to make medical decisions that impact their body.

A fetus is a parasite. It feeds off the host with no benefits and several costs. The fetus could not survive outside of the body for the majority of the pregnancy (as in, the last month or two). This is not like a small child that needs help...a fetus is fully incapable of basic functions...brain activity, heart beat, breathing, eating.

There is no "baby shortage"...the US system has been manipulated that the biological parent can pretty much always get the child back untill the child is a legal adult. This is why many adoptive parents look overseas.

Yes, it is nice that some CHOOSE to follow through with a full-term (9 month) pregnancy and offer their children for adoption, a very tough CHOICE--but I am glad that women also have the CHOICE not to have a child, as no one should force them to do so. If they CHOOSE to abort instead, they should have quality medical care, just like they would if they CHOOSE to carry to term and go the adoption route. Being pregnant can impact on jobs, other family members and children, finances and many things, and it is ultimately a choice the woman must make, not the man, not the religious right, not the country, state or world.

Indeed.

Source?

Let's see...there's the famine in so many areas, the lack of clean water in so many areas, the number of countries at or past their population limit, the number of forests being leveled becasue they need more farmland, the fact that we ALREADY have agriculture on 26% of the world's land (and yes, the remaining 74% includes things like the sahara desert and the antarctic ice cap).

Do you need more proof?

Yes if the penis is gonna die.

But thats a very stupid hypothetical question cause penises dont die and I'm gay.

But it's really the same question. Does the life of anyone trump a woman's right to decide what happens to her body? If 'yes', why aren't organ donations mandatory? Do corpses have more rights than women? Why isn't blood donation compulsory? Or marrow typing? Why even wait for death? You can live with one kidney and taking it could save a life! Surely the right to life trumps the inconvenience of having to pee more frequently. More simply, why is a fetus produced from a rape less deserving of life than any other?

If 'no', then what makes a fetus special?

If you think the menatally handicapped arent self aware, you dont know what self aware means.

Come back when you learn basic vocabulary.

so you argue with the vocabulary and not the idea?

That might be something Christ would do. thank you George Carlin

Avatar fix.

Women are not baby incubators. They have the right to bodily integrity and to make medical decisions that impact their body.

A fetus is a parasite. It feeds off the host with no benefits and several costs. The fetus could not survive outside of the body for the majority of the pregnancy (as in, the last month or two). This is not like a small child that needs help...a fetus is fully incapable of basic functions...brain activity, heart beat, breathing, eating.

There is no "baby shortage"...the US system has been manipulated that the biological parent can pretty much always get the child back untill the child is a legal adult. This is why many adoptive parents look overseas.

Sums up my 20 posts in the thread, but in one.

Yes if the penis is gonna die.

But thats a very stupid hypothetical question cause penises dont die and I'm gay.
I choose that you be castrated, whether you like it or not; moreover, when that procedure is performed, it shall be done by a guy with filthy hands and a knife pulled out of a fish barrel, sharpened on the sole of a shoe. You don't have a choice about this.

Avatar fix.

Oh, there you are! Where have you been?

Same, and I even have an avatar.

I wonder why the OP painted abortion as 'necessary'. Abortion is not necessary. The choice to have an abortion is what I believe that is necessary.
I would rather he answer this question, what makes it necessary to deprive women of making their own choice?

I requested title change cause I dont wanna get into the legality of the issue. It was more about like isnt abortion redundant?

Thats a stupid arguement. Consenting to sex does not mean consenting to pregency. I acknowledge the risk of death whenever I cross the street. Does that mean if Im sober, look both ways, etc, and still get hit by a bus I consented to getting hit by a bus?

How is consenting to sex not also consenting to pregnancy? The natural consequence of sexual activity is pregnancy, and there is always that risk. When I invest in shares, I consent to the risk that I will lose my money. When you take an action, you consent to the risk that something might go wrong.

You might do everything reasonable to mitigate that risk, but nevertheless, you still consent to that risk.

Sums up my 20 posts in the thread, but in one.
I know I'm missing two big points I usually post in these threads, but can't for the life of me think of what they are...

Women are not baby incubators. They have the right to bodily integrity and to make medical decisions that impact their body.

True.

A fetus is a parasite.

That must be why medical doctors concerned with pregnancy are called parasitologists.

It feeds off the host with no benefits and several costs. The fetus could not survive outside of the body for the majority of the pregnancy (as in, the last month or two). This is not like a small child that needs help...a fetus is fully incapable of basic functions...brain activity, heart beat, breathing, eating.

True, but calling it a 'parasite' smacks of dehumanizing the enemy and is unnecessary.

Carrying it to term is equally unnecessary, why are you arguing to force people to do it?

Again, this thread is not about it being legal or illegal.

How is consenting to sex not also consenting to pregnancy? The natural consequence of sexual activity is pregnancy, and there is always that risk. When I invest in shares, I consent to the risk that I will lose my money. When you take an action, you consent to the risk that something might go wrong.

You might do everything reasonable to mitigate that risk, but nevertheless, you still consent to that risk.


Youre just repeating what you said earlier without actually refuting my arguement.

When I get hit by a semi crossing the street, did I consent to getting hit by the semi because I crossed the street?

Youre arguement is awful.

3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:

Adoption is a solution if the problem is "baby," not if the problem is "pregnancy."

So women have the right to cut off penises that are inside them?

If the penis wasn't invited in and isn't welcome there? Most definitely.

If the penis wasn't invited in and isn't welcome there? Most definitely.

This.

Except for rape/incest/health problems?
Abortion is necessary because sometimes it is necessary for a woman to stop being pregnant.

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)

1) Use birth control
What make you think women don't?

2) If you forget, use morning after
1) Sometimes, you don't realize your contraceptive failed until you miss a period. Then it is too late for a morning after pill.

2) Not every pregnancy that must be aborted is unplanned or unwanted.

3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption,
The point of abortion is to stop being pregnant. Giving a baby up for adoption does not solve the problem of being pregnant.

there seems to be a baby shortage:


http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html
Maybe your source just doesn't know where to shop. According to my source, there are plenty of children needing adoption, only a lot of them fail to be white, 100% healthy, and infants.

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System

* An estimated 469,073 children were in foster care at the end of 1994. Of these children, 4% were under age 1; 31% were 1-5; 35% were 6-12; and 30% were 13 or older. Almost 47% were African-American; 32% were White; 14% were Hispanic; almost 1% were Native American/Alaskan Native and Asian/Pacific Islander; and the background of the rest was unknown. Multistate Data Archive

* Between 1983 and 1993 the number of children in foster care had increased as follows in selected states: 154% in California; 158% in Illinois; 67% in Michigan; 120% in New York; and 123% in Texas.

* Between 1990 and 1993, 24% of the children entering foster care in the five states listed above were under age 1; the largest share were newborns.

Look here for more real info:
http://www.casanet.org/library/foster-care/fost.htm

By the way, my source site, CASAnet.org is a website of CASA -- Court Appointed Special Advocates. Here is their home site, so you can check out their agenda and credentials.

http://www.casanet.org/index.htm

I linked through several pages of your source and could not find a single page that would tell me who they are or what their interest in adoption is.

4) So?
So, I think your argument is shallow and simplistic, and the assertions suggested by it are false.

Women are not baby incubators. They have the right to bodily integrity and to make medical decisions that impact their body.

A fetus is a parasite. It feeds off the host with no benefits and several costs. The fetus could not survive outside of the body for the majority of the pregnancy (as in, the last month or two). This is not like a small child that needs help...a fetus is fully incapable of basic functions...brain activity, heart beat, breathing, eating.


No.

"8 weeks: condition at start of fetal stage....
At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional.[12]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus


There is no "baby shortage"...the US system has been manipulated that the biological parent can pretty much always get the child back untill the child is a legal adult. This is why many adoptive parents look overseas.

Source?

How is consenting to sex not also consenting to pregnancy? The natural consequence of sexual activity is pregnancy, and there is always that risk. When I invest in shares, I consent to the risk that I will lose my money. When you take an action, you consent to the risk that something might go wrong.

You might do everything reasonable to mitigate that risk, but nevertheless, you still consent to that risk.

You don't "consent" to whatever might happen. You're not "consenting" to die simply because when driving an automobile, there is that risk. You're consenting to the risk, but that doesn't mean you've actually signed a death warrant and said "Yes, give me that dismemberment and violent, horrible death PLEASE!"

That said, when you have sex, you shouldn't act like pregnancy is a surprise. But I don't think anyone is doing that.

Oh, there you are! Where have you been?

Like it? I cropped it out of a picture of Darth Vader driving a small little racecar. I probably should have done a 200x200 crop and shrunk it half-size, but I was feeling lazy.

How is consenting to sex not also consenting to pregnancy? The natural consequence of sexual activity is pregnancy, and there is always that risk. When I invest in shares, I consent to the risk that I will lose my money. When you take an action, you consent to the risk that something might go wrong.

By that rationale you also consent to your investment banker taking all your money and moving to Buenos Aires.

Again, this thread is not about it being legal or illegal.

Honestly, someone should stick a bowling ball up your ass for 9 months, among other uncomfortable factors of pregnancy, and then you can ask whether it's just a minor inconvenience to carry a child to term for the sake of... of what... of denying people the simple option of abortion.

If you're not forcing people to carry to term, which you can only do through the law, then you're pretty much looking at the current state of affairs.

Except for rape/incest/health problems?

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)

1) Use birth control
2) If you forget, use morning after
3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:


http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html

4) So?
What proof do you have that the adoption encyclopedia is a reliable source? I haven't heard of it before, and I'd heard that there were more babies up for adoption than eligible adopters. And why couldn't they adopt from third world countries?

Besides, I think there might be a bit of an emotional conflict in having to raise a child in the womb and then give it up once it's born. They would probably find it better to get rid of the fetus BEFORE it develops into a person, with a consciousness/sentience to lose.

Abortion is necessary because sometimes it is necessary for a woman to stop being pregnant.


What make you think women don't?


1) Sometimes, you don't realize your contraceptive failed until you miss a period. Then it is too late for a morning after pill.

2) Not every pregnancy that must be aborted is unplanned or unwanted.


The point of abortion is to stop being pregnant. Giving a baby up for adoption does not solve the problem of being pregnant.


Maybe your source just doesn't know where to shop. According to my source, there are plenty of children needing adoption, only a lot of them fail to be white, 100% healthy, and infants.



Look here for more real info:
http://www.casanet.org/library/foster-care/fost.htm

By the way, my source site, CASAnet.org is a website of CASA -- Court Appointed Special Advocates. Here is their home site, so you can check out their agenda and credentials.

http://www.casanet.org/index.htm

I linked through several pages of your source and could not find a single page that would tell me who they are or what their interest in adoption is.


So, I think your argument is shallow and simplistic, and the assertions suggested by it are false.

Is abortion more about terminating the pregnancy because of pregnancy or because you can not support a child at that time?

And about your abortion source, that is the overall children, not the babies.

Honestly, someone should stick a bowling ball up your ass for 9 months, among other uncomfortable factors of pregnancy, and then you can ask whether it's just a minor inconvenience to carry a child to term for the sake of... of what... of denying people the simple option of abortion.

If you're not forcing people to carry to term, which you can only do through the law, then you're pretty much looking at the current state of affairs.
Good one!

That must be why medical doctors concerned with pregnancy are called parasitologists.

True, but calling it a 'parasite' smacks of dehumanizing the enemy and is unnecessary.

Do fetuses feed off the host with no other way of feeding? Does the host also handle respiration? And waste disposal? Does the fetus cause massive physical changes that make daily life difficult and, in some cases, dangerous? Does the fetus provide any benefit to the host? No?

Then it's a parasite. Sorry if science words have been bastardized in other fields, but that is what it is.

Is abortion more about terminating the pregnancy because of pregnancy or because you can not support a child at that time?

Both. Who cares?

Like it? I cropped it out of a picture of Darth Vader driving a small little racecar. I probably should have done a 200x200 crop and shrunk it half-size, but I was feeling lazy.

Here's one for ya: Just shrink and enjoy. http://www.just-whatever.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/toilet_stormtrooper_01.jpg :D

Maybe require the doctor/hospital/clinic do a check for an adoption agency willing to take the child. make the check take no more then 2 to 4 business days. If there is a match the woman should be notified of the adoption agencies terms (most cover prenatal care and others cover rent and food as well) and the woman should be given a choice to sign a adoption contract with the agency.
This should protect a woman's rights while allowing those who want to adopt the chance.

Why do so many people think that abortion is just about "getting rid" of a baby? Women have the right to not carry a pregnancy to term and deliver.

So if you're having sex with a woman who consented and she changes her mind and tells you to stop, she has to wait until you're done because she consented at the beginning? Hmm...

We need to revive the "what constitutes rape" thread, clearly.

What is self awareness? They can certainly feel pain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

Did you read your own source?

Yes they did with the later. They consented to the child when they consented to have the penis inside them; that is what happens when you have sex, you always carry the risk of pregnancy.

When you step outside, you always carry the risk of being kidnapped, raped and murdered. Therefor these should not be considered crimes and police should not assist you.

This thread isn't trying very hard.

I suggest it be aborted.

This thread isn't trying very hard.

I suggest it be aborted.

Sad thing is, I think the anti-choicers are trying.

This thread isn't trying very hard.

I suggest it be aborted.

Seconded!

This thread isn't trying very hard.

I suggest it be aborted.

Sorry, we need to continue it so we can donate it to another forum when done, one that has no real threads of its own, I suggest UMP :tongue:

This thread isn't trying very hard.

I suggest it be aborted.

Perhaps we can interest another forum in adopting it.

As per usual my suggestions are dismissed without comment, possibly ignored.

I think it's because I don't have an avatar. *runs off to get an avatar*
Good Gods!! I can see you!!!

Were you saying something? ;)

Sorry, we need to continue it so we can donate it to another forum, one that has no real threads of its own, I suggest UMP :tongue:
No no, abort it. Aren't abortions full of stem celly goodness or something?

Here's one for ya: Just shrink and enjoy. http://www.just-whatever.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/toilet_stormtrooper_01.jpg :D

I like it, but it doesn't lend itself to avatar usage. If I chop the top square and shrink it down, it will be too small to tell they're in the bathroom, and if I crop it to their heads, you won't be able to tell they're in the bathroom without sufficient background information.

Sorry, we need to continue it so we can donate it to another forum when done, one that has no real threads of its own, I suggest UMP :tongue:

Unfortunately, UMP only wants healthy, white, newborn threads. This one is already too old and diseased to be worth taking, and so it can have a miserable life with no one to love it instead. ;)

Except for rape/incest/health problems?

First of all dont think I'm a "US Xtian right/conservative", etc, I'm def not. Actually I'm not even American. I'm pretty liberal, study social sciences in university, vegetarian, anti-death penalty, etc (u get the idea :p)

1) Use birth control
2) If you forget, use morning after
3) If birth control fails, give it up for adoption, there seems to be a baby shortage:


http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/baby-shortage/54/1.html

4) So?
Having to give up a child would be incredibly traumatizing. . .just for one.

Do fetuses feed off the host with no other way of feeding? Does the host also handle respiration? And waste disposal? Does the fetus cause massive physical changes that make daily life difficult and, in some cases, dangerous? Does the fetus provide any benefit to the host? No?

Then it's a parasite.

It's called mammalian biological development.

Sorry if science words have been bastardized in other fields, but that is what it is.

Other fields than what? Which scientific field, exactly, calls fetuses parasites and pretends pregnancy is a parasitic infection?

No no, abort it. Aren't abortions full of stem celly goodness or something?
Yes indeed they are--the stem cells save lives!

You don't "consent" to whatever might happen. You're not "consenting" to die simply because when driving an automobile, there is that risk. You're consenting to the risk, but that doesn't mean you've actually signed a death warrant and said "Yes, give me that dismemberment and violent, horrible death PLEASE!"

You might not do it explicitly, but you are consenting nevertheless by doing the activity of driving.

That said, when you have sex, you shouldn't act like pregnancy is a surprise. But I don't think anyone is doing that.

In which case, you shouldn't need to abort. If you chose to have sex, you chose to accept the consequences. If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex in the first place.

When you step outside, you always carry the risk of being kidnapped, raped and murdered. Therefor these should not be considered crimes and police should not assist you.

That is a different situation. That is where someone elses actions have negatively impacted upon you; if you take a plane ride, and the plane falls out of the sky by pure accident and you die, you consented to death when you boarded the plane.

Likewise, when you have sex, you consent to getting pregnant. Like I said before, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

I like it, but it doesn't lend itself to avatar usage. If I chop the top square and shrink it down, it will be too small to tell they're in the bathroom, and if I crop it to their heads, you won't be able to tell they're in the bathroom without sufficient background information.

Hmm.... what about Darth Vader strangling Elmo? http://www.boingboing.net/images/vaderelmodeathwar.jpg

No.

"8 weeks: condition at start of fetal stage....
At this point, all major structures, including hands, feet, head, brain, and other organs are present, but they will continue to grow, develop, and become more functional.[12]..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus


Presences does not equal functionality.
From your own source:

Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment... There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated... If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants.... Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and prenatal death.

Also from your source, the youngest to survive were about 22 weeks (21 weeks 5 days and 21 weeks 6 days). That is 3x what you stated. And only two have survived that young.
Source?
Meh, I'll dig for it if I gain the focus.

Honestly, someone should stick a bowling ball up your ass for 9 months, among other uncomfortable factors of pregnancy, and then you can ask whether it's just a minor inconvenience to carry a child to term for the sake of... of what... of denying people the simple option of abortion.

If you're not forcing people to carry to term, which you can only do through the law, then you're pretty much looking at the current state of affairs.

No not the current state of affairs. There should be a time restriction. More research is needed about the functions of a fetus, about when they feel pain, etc.

Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.


Study from Norway finds difficulties two years later; Abortion's Lingering Psychological After-Effects Documented.

A Norwegian study that compared the psychological reactions of women who had miscarriages to women who'd had abortions found that the women having abortions had significantly more avoidance issues two years after the event than women having miscarriages.
...

http://www.articlearchives.com/reports-reviews-sections/interviews/253642-1.html

So there should be a more orderly and more humane process, with the eventual decision (within time limit) up to women.

You might not do it explicitly, but you are consenting nevertheless by doing the activity of driving.



In which case, you shouldn't need to abort. If you chose to have sex, you chose to accept the consequences. If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex in the first place.

So, you no longer can charge reckless drivers with reckless driving. Understood.


That is a different situation. That is where someone elses actions have negatively impacted upon you; if you take a plane ride, and the plane falls out of the sky by pure accident and you die, you consented to death when you boarded the plane.

Likewise, when you have sex, you consent to getting pregnant. Like I said before, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

God your arguement is shit.

Presences does not equal functionality.


What are you talking about. They are present so they are functioning, altho not fully. Do you think they start functioning after being fully complete, like someone opening a switch?


From your own source:

Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment... There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated... If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants.... Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and prenatal death.

Also from your source, the youngest to survive were about 22 weeks (21 weeks 5 days and 21 weeks 6 days). That is 3x what you stated. And only two have survived that young.

Meh, I'll dig for it if I gain the focus.

Unfortunately, UMP only wants healthy, white, newborn threads. This one is already too old and diseased to be worth taking, and so it can have a miserable life with no one to love it instead. ;)

I resent the implication that the only criteria we have is 'white and healthy' newborns! We also demand that those newborns NOT be gay or transgendered, or that they will end up Muslim or any other variation of non-Christian, and we further insist that they not be prone to diseases like poverty and liberalism!

It's called mammalian biological development.Yes, it is. And at its earliest, it is parasitic.



Other fields than what? Which scientific field, exactly, calls fetuses parasites and pretends pregnancy is a parasitic infection?

Does it fit into the realm of what we would consider a parasite?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it just might be one.

Let's see...there's the famine in so many areas, the lack of clean water in so many areas, the number of countries at or past their population limit, the number of forests being leveled becasue they need more farmland, the fact that we ALREADY have agriculture on 26% of the world's land (and yes, the remaining 74% includes things like the sahara desert and the antarctic ice cap).

Do you need more proof?

Yes, I need reliable sources, not your interpretations.

And there are famines because farming in most parts of the world is not as efficient as Western farming.

And again, source for that agriculture area claim?

Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite".

True. An accurate statement would be "A fetus is basically identical to a parasite in every way except one, which is that it happens to be the same species as its host. It ACTS exactly like a parasite, though!"

But it's really the same question. Does the life of anyone trump a woman's right to decide what happens to her body? If 'yes', why aren't organ donations mandatory? Do corpses have more rights than women? Why isn't blood donation compulsory? Or marrow typing? Why even wait for death? You can live with one kidney and taking it could save a life! Surely the right to life trumps the inconvenience of having to pee more frequently. More simply, why is a fetus produced from a rape less deserving of life than any other?

If 'no', then what makes a fetus special?

This is making me getting side tracked, I should have made this clear in the OP which I will make it now.

I resent the implication that the only criteria we have is 'white and healthy' newborns! We also demand that those newborns NOT be gay or transgendered, or that they will end up Muslim or any other variation of non-Christian, and we further insist that they not be prone to diseases like poverty and liberalism!

I can vouch for this. I was almost turned away because I was non-Christian. Neesika and GoG smuggled me in.

Abortion should be kept legal its a practical issue.
however regulations can be instituted to affect this.
Maybe require the doctor/hospital/clinic do a check for an adoption agency willing to take the child. make the check take no more then 2 to 4 business days. If there is a match the woman should be notified of the adoption agencies terms (most cover prenatal care and others cover rent and food as well) and the woman should be given a choice to sign a adoption contract with the agency.
This should protect a woman's rights while allowing those who want to adopt the chance.
No woman needs her MD to check with adoption agencies and feed her information on people who want to adopt. She can do that herself if she so chooses. What do you think women are, idiots who need to be guided? I can also tell you that no MD wants to be legally required to check around with adoption agencies.

Adoption agencies are listed in the phone book and on the web, and women know how to use a phone and computer. They don't need to be "forcefed" information they do not seek. They only need appropriate medical care of their choice, like men.

You might not do it explicitly, but you are consenting nevertheless by doing the activity of driving.

Are you seriously arguing that, by getting in a car, you forfeit the right to medical care if you get in an accident? Seriously? Because this is taking "totally insane logic" to new heights.

So, you no longer can charge reckless drivers with reckless driving. Understood.

Hang on a second, I think you are just being stupid for the sake of it. Reckless drivers are not the natural consequence of driving; they are people being reckless and should take responsibility for their actions (like people who get pregnant should also take responsibility for their actions).

Hmm.... what about Darth Vader strangling Elmo? http://www.boingboing.net/images/vaderelmodeathwar.jpg

Done. Opinions?

You might not do it explicitly, but you are consenting nevertheless by doing the activity of driving.
No, you don't. Hence wrongful death suits.

In which case, you shouldn't need to abort. If you chose to have sex, you chose to accept the consequences. If you don't want to get pregnant, then don't have sex in the first place.

Yeah, it's not like humans, like a few other mammals have sex just for pleasure. :rolleyes:

That is a different situation. That is where someone elses actions have negatively impacted upon you; if you take a plane ride, and the plane falls out of the sky by pure accident and you die, you consented to death when you boarded the plane.
Psst... don't look now, but to get pregnant, you DO need someone else's actions. Ya know, that whole tab A and slot B thing?

Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.

Counseling is already mandatory in most areas.

What are you talking about. They are present so they are functioning, altho not fully. Do you think they start functioning after being fully complete, like someone opening a switch?

You mean to tell me that you think the baby is respiring, despite being submerged in amniotic fluid?

Yes, functionality is slowly built. But again, just because there are things that can be defined as lungs does not mean that they are functional. Just because there is a lump that can be defined as a brain does not mean it is sending signals.

Hang on a second, I think you are just being stupid for the sake of it. Reckless drivers are not the natural consequence of driving; they are people being reckless and should take responsibility for their actions (like people who get pregnant should also take responsibility for their actions).

Hey, Im not the on arguing you forfit medical care when you get hit by a care because you consented to it by crossing the street.

You might not do it explicitly, but you are consenting nevertheless by doing the activity of driving.

Interesting.

That is a different situation. That is where someone elses actions have negatively impacted upon you; if you take a plane ride, and the plane falls out of the sky by pure accident and you die, you consented to death when you boarded the plane.

So many people are suicidal! Who knew?

Likewise, when you have sex, you consent to getting pregnant. Like I said before, if you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex.

This advice is really useful for those people who are either perfectly rational in all situations, or have time machines.

No not the current state of affairs. There should be a time restriction. More research is needed about the functions of a fetus, about when they feel pain, etc.

Already been done. I forget the time line but Demp knows.


Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.


It's rather ignorant to suggest most women don't understand the ramifications of their choice. Granted there are some women who view it as "birth contorl" but those numbers are not even worth mentioning.

You show your ignorance. The fetus is a parasite. Where is it getting it's food?

Even when there is a damn good reason (ie terminal disease) for an abortion, the mother still has regrets. Not a valid arguement.


So there should be a more orderly and more humane process, with the eventual decision (within time limit) up to women.

I will make you a deal. You Bible thumpers get together and adopt all the children in the system so there are no more needing a home, then I will join your camp for putting more restrictions on abortion.

What do you think women are, idiots who need to be guided?

This is pretty much the definition of the anti-choice position, sadly. "You are too stupid/immoral to make the RIGHT choice, so I'll just make it for you."

Are you seriously arguing that, by getting in a car, you forfeit the right to medical care if you get in an accident? Seriously? Because this is taking "totally insane logic" to new heights.

Of course not, but what I am arguing is that one should take responsibility for their actions. If you want to have sex, fine, but then you are also taking the risk that you might get pregnant and should take that responsibility.

Done. Opinions?

Not bad. I found another good one. I even shrunk it and put it in my own files:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/anniesnaps.JPG

:D

This is pretty much the definition of the anti-choice position, sadly. "You are too stupid/immoral to make the RIGHT choice, so I'll just make it for you."

And when you do make your own choice, you always regret it!

This is pretty much the definition of the anti-choice position, sadly. "You are too stupid/immoral to make the RIGHT choice, so I'll just make it for you."

Hey can you get me a beer sweet cheeks?

*runs*

should take that responsibility.

Like aborting it. Glad we agree.


Careful when you cross the street. Wouldnt want you consenting to becoming a road pancake via semi.

Adoption is a solution if the problem is "baby," not if the problem is "pregnancy."


I would assume thats the minority of cases.

Of course not, but what I am arguing is that one should take responsibility for their actions. If you want to have sex, fine, but then you are also taking the risk that you might get pregnant and should take that responsibility.

Which is exactly what the woman who makes a CHOICE whether or not to continue that pregnancy is doing.

Yes, I need reliable sources, not your interpretations.

And there are famines because farming in most parts of the world is not as efficient as Western farming.

And again, source for that agriculture area claim?

It's not interpretations,. but hard facts; go check wikipedia if you don't believe me.

On a side note, gallo should use this (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3360/vaderpinkac9.png) vader pic instead. >_>

I would assume thats the minority of cases.

You assume wrong. Most people get abortions because the problem is the baby. They cant afford it or support it, for example.

Yeah, it's not like humans, like a few other mammals have sex just for pleasure. :rolleyes:

The sole reason that sex is pleasurable is because nature wants you to procreate. The whole idea behind life is to procreate.

Psst... don't look now, but to get pregnant, you DO need someone else's actions. Ya know, that whole tab A and slot B thing?

Yes, but the owner of slot B needs to consent, otherwise it is known as rape.

This advice is really useful for those people who are either perfectly rational in all situations, or have time machines.

It doesn't take much smarts to realise that sex might result in pregnancy - you don't need to be perfectly rational in all situations to realise that.

Not bad. I found another good one. I even shrunk it and put it in my own files:

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/anniesnaps.JPG

:D

I'm saving that in my personal files.

Is abortion more about terminating the pregnancy because of pregnancy or because you can not support a child at that time?
The fact that you ask this question is a strong indicator that you have not bothered to learn jackshit about abortion before shooting off your mouth about how "unnecessary" it is.

If you had bothered to educate yourself, you would know that pregnancy is extremely expensive all by itself, never mind the cost of raising the kid for 20 years.

You would also know that pregnancy is physically quite dangerous for women, and that many women simply cannot carry a pregnancy to term for a variety of reasons, such as they are too young, or they are too old, or they have congenital abnormalities of their pelvis or uterus that make it dangerous, or they have pre-existing health problems that make it dangerous, or they develop such health problems as one of the common complications of pregnancy, etc.

And about your abortion source, that is the overall children, not the babies.
And this remark is evidence that all the "what about the children?!" yelling of the anti-choice faction is bullshit.

Where do you think all those children who aren't babies came from? Mars? Fairyland?

They were ALL babies once. They are ALL unwanted. And in those represented by the numbers on adoption out of foster care that I posted, they are ALL up for adoption.

But we all know that that anti-choicers don't really give a shit about human life, and that's why they don't give a shit about non-babies languishing in public care with no one to adopt them until they age out of the system.

The sole reason that sex is pleasurable is because nature wants you to procreate. The whole idea behind life is to procreate.


Actually, it feels good because of things like nerve endings, but you know, whatever. Humans and dolphins are the only animals that fuck for pleasure.

It's not interpretations,. but hard facts; go check wikipedia if you don't believe me.

On a side note, gallo should use this (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3360/vaderpinkac9.png) vader pic instead. >_>

You shall die... post-haste.

This is pretty much the definition of the anti-choice position, sadly. "You are too stupid/immoral to make the RIGHT choice, so I'll just make it for you."
Thanks, and will you support me and my family too? We would all appreciate it. Oh, and I could use extra money for the hospital costs that result when having a kid, not to mention healtcare, education costs etc. Also, I'll need a lifetime of counseling if you also make the choice for me that I must give the child up for adoption because you choose not to or can't afford to support me, it and my family. Add that to the tab. Address to send the check to be posted separately. . . .

No not the current state of affairs. There should be a time restriction. More research is needed about the functions of a fetus, about when they feel pain, etc.

Yes, it's a wonder that women can get an abortion any time they please and even more of a wonder that no one has done any research into this area.

There was a recent debate in the UK parliament over this specific issue, the cut off time in relation to possible pain of the foetus. If I remember correctly, it was about 20 weeks or so.

Also, psychological consultation before abortion could be made mandatory so that people can realize the consequences of their actions. Eg: some people are making ignorant statements like "fetus is a parasite". And they can discuss their options, like giving it up for adoption. Of course better sex education is another option. Many people seem to regret it too.


http://www.articlearchives.com/reports-reviews-sections/interviews/253642-1.html

So there should be a more orderly and more humane process, with the eventual decision (within time limit) up to women.

Ah, here we go, it's to protect the woman...

I don't necessarily disagree, as much information and support should be out there as possible, alas only one side of the debate wants to do that, the same side who support proper sex education in schools, the same side think creationism should not be taught in science classes, the same side...

I do sort of disagree with the whole 'mandatory' thing, you say it's not about legality but the only means of fulfilling your wishes is to restrict the choice of the woman.

Im going to bed. Got class tomorrow, and abortion threads are like fighting a guy in a coma. Fun for a while, but c'mon, really? :p

Which is exactly what the woman who makes a CHOICE whether or not to continue that pregnancy is doing.

That is like failed businesses getting bailed out by the government. It is a cop-out and doing the very opposite of taking responsibility. No wonder we are in this mess, no one wants to take responsibility anymore - they want all the good and none of the bad.

Actually, it feels good because of things like nerve endings, but you know, whatever. Humans and dolphins are the only animals that fuck for pleasure.

Which have been developed to increase the chance that we will have intercourse and thus procreate, fulfilling our role as any species.

That is like failed businesses getting bailed out by the government. It is a cop-out and doing the very opposite of taking responsibility. No wonder we are in this mess, no one wants to take responsibility anymore - they want all the good and none of the bad.

Just like that "cop-out" of getting medical treatment after you're in a car accident. A responsible person would just bleed to death, right?



Which have been developed to increase the chance that we will have intercourse and thus procreate, fulfilling our role as any species.

...."have been developed"? Oh, god, is this going to turn into an ID thread now?

What proof do you have that the adoption encyclopedia is a reliable source? I haven't heard of it before, and I'd heard that there were more babies up for adoption than eligible adopters. And why couldn't they adopt from third world countries?

Besides, I think there might be a bit of an emotional conflict in having to raise a child in the womb and then give it up once it's born. They would probably find it better to get rid of the fetus BEFORE it develops into a person, with a consciousness/sentience to lose.

"...The number of couples hoping for a baby now so dramatically exceeds the available abandoned infants that it could take at least three years, if not more, to adopt. Officials for the China Centre of Adoption Affairs said there were an almost insurmountable 25,000 files - including 600 Canadians - waiting to be matched with Chinese orphans...."
http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/features/saturdaymagazine/story.html?id=65048f61-4c77-4067-b06c-1e54c8b001fc&k=4094

...."have been developed"? Oh, god, is this going to turn into an ID thread now?

I would take "developed" as a term belonging to evolution

Whereas, I would take "designed" or "created" to mean ID.

Yes, I need reliable sources, not your interpretations.

And there are famines because farming in most parts of the world is not as efficient as Western farming.

And again, source for that agriculture area claim?
You need reliable sources? What a coincidence! So do I! You can start by accounting for the credentials of your OP source, which cannot be found anywhere on their website. Who are they and why should we take their word for anything?

I would take "developed" as a term belonging to evolution

Whereas, I would take "designed" or "created" to mean ID.

"They developed" is one thing, "they have been developed" is another, and implies something doing the developing - not to mention the apparent intended GOAL. Yeesh.

Do fetuses feed off the host with no other way of feeding? Does the host also handle respiration? And waste disposal? Does the fetus cause massive physical changes that make daily life difficult and, in some cases, dangerous? Does the fetus provide any benefit to the host? No?

Then it's a parasite. Sorry if science words have been bastardized in other fields, but that is what it is.

I dont see it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parasitic_organisms

Is the biological classification of human fetuses different than adult humans?

"They developed" is one thing, "they have been developed" is another, and implies something doing the developing - not to mention the apparent intended GOAL. Yeesh.

Come on, haven't you heard of survival of the fittest? The fittest survive, procreate and thus keep their superior genes in the gene-pool.

I used very neutral language there deliberately.

"They developed" is one thing, "they have been developed" is another, and implies something doing the developing - not to mention the apparent intended GOAL. Yeesh.

Probably a grammatical foible as opposed to a deliberate injection of design.

He probably meant "has".

Having to give up a child would be incredibly traumatizing. . .just for one.

See the research in Norway, abortion can be traumatizing too.

True. An accurate statement would be "A fetus is basically identical to a parasite in every way except one, which is that it happens to be the same species as its host. It ACTS exactly like a parasite, though!"

Well, basically human children are parasites too then.

"You are a parasite as long as you are under my roof!"

Well, basically human children are parasites too then.

"You are a parasite as long as you are under my roof!"

Your argument is persuasive.

I call for an extension of the abortion privilege until the child's 16th birthday.

You mean to tell me that you think the baby is respiring, despite being submerged in amniotic fluid?

Yes, functionality is slowly built. But again, just because there are things that can be defined as lungs does not mean that they are functional. Just because there is a lump that can be defined as a brain does not mean it is sending signals.

So adult humans with breathing aid are parasites too.

Come on, haven't you heard of survival of the fittest? The fittest survive, procreate and thus keep their superior genes in the gene-pool.

I used very neutral language there deliberately.

Apparently you've only heard of it yourself if you think the "fittest" necessarily have "superior genes." Likewise, if you think having a lot of nerve endings in our genitals means anything more than "nerves in your genitals don't keep you from successfully reproducing."

True. An accurate statement would be "A fetus is basically identical to a parasite in every way except one, which is that it happens to be the same species as its host. It ACTS exactly like a parasite, though!"

To be fair, some of those people are very bitter at life right now and somewhat sore ;)

I may be wrong, but the morning after pill is not available here in the United States, is it? Something to do with, doctors making more money off of abortions I believe, but I could be wrong. Also, am I allowed to be a fence sitter on this? I would much rather see a strike rule, that would also incorporate welfare if desired:
First time: Abortion granted, everyone makes mistakes
Second time: Abortion granted, tubes tied...no more babies(and no more having babies so the welfare check goes up)

I just don't understand why people can't compromise. If someone needs an abortion because of rape, it is granted as long as a complaint is filed with the police. Neither side would get their way fully, but isn't that what compromise is all about?

So adult humans with breathing aid are parasites too.
Are they attached to a host? Do they feed off of another being at the detriment to that being?

Well, basically human children are parasites too then.

"You are a parasite as long as you are under my roof!"

Um....no. I mean, seriously, do you know what the word "parasite" means?

Because a woman has the right not to endanger her health, her ability to work, and to refuse to put herself in the position of paying all the medical bills that carrying a baby to term engenders.

And because it's really no one's business but hers, her doctors, and her close family members -- certainly not the business of some self-righteous stranger who bears none of the burden or the consequences.

Already been done. I forget the time line but Demp knows.



It's rather ignorant to suggest most women don't understand the ramifications of their choice. Granted there are some women who view it as "birth contorl" but those numbers are not even worth mentioning.

You show your ignorance. The fetus is a parasite. Where is it getting it's food?

Even when there is a damn good reason (ie terminal disease) for an abortion, the mother still has regrets. Not a valid arguement.




I will make you a deal. You Bible thumpers get together and adopt all the children in the system so there are no more needing a home, then I will join your camp for putting more restrictions on abortion.

Bible thumpers? WTF? I'm not a xtian, that was offensive.

I may be wrong, but the morning after pill is not available here in the United States, is it? Something to do with, doctors making more money off of abortions I believe, but I could be wrong.
Absolutely it is. It's called "Plan B". You are wrong, and cynical.

Idk about the idea of abortion in general being necessary...

But, guess what, Its beside the point, its not going away, once the secrets out youre not going to stop it, much like drug use actually...

The only thing you can do is either A) keep it legal and accessible so that there arent women dying from botched and unclean abortion methods..

or B) shove it back in the dark allies so that we have mass numbers of women dying off from botched and unclean abortions...

But, the one thing you cant do, is turn back the clock to a time before abortions, much like trying to turn back the clock to a time before drug use...

So adult humans with breathing aid are parasites too.

I don't think you know what that word means.

So adult humans with breathing aid are parasites too.

I hereby propose all breathing aids can abort adult humans whenever they so choose. We good?

Yes they did with the later. They consented to the child when they consented to have the penis inside them; that is what happens when you have sex, you always carry the risk of pregnancy.
I notice that under this "rule" of yours, it's the female who bears the burden.
Fortunately, that's not the way the world works.

I may be wrong, but the morning after pill is not available here in the United States, is it? Something to do with, doctors making more money off of abortions I believe, but I could be wrong.
You are. On so many things in that statement, it actually pains me right now.

I just don't understand why people can't compromise. If someone needs an abortion because of rape, it is granted as long as a complaint is filed with the police. Neither side would get their way fully, but isn't that what compromise is all about?
Not everyone wants to file their rape with the police, and not a single person is in a position to force them to do that.

Not to mention, your little "strike" idea still strips adult humans of their right to bodily integrity. Which isn't compromise, it's giving up the whole war.

Do I need to bring out Bob the Janitor again?

I just don't understand why people can't compromise. If someone needs an abortion because of rape, it is granted as long as a complaint is filed with the police. Neither side would get their way fully, but isn't that what compromise is all about?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Are you FREAKING kidding me?!

You would require that a rape victim potentially risk her life further, lose the support of friends and family, and generally be put through the special hell the assholes of this world reserve for rape victims who go public, as the price she has to pay to keep from bearing her attacker's child?

You have to be kidding me, right?

It's not interpretations,. but hard facts; go check wikipedia if you don't believe me.

On a side note, gallo should use this (http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/3360/vaderpinkac9.png) vader pic instead. >_>

Have u heard burden of proof?

You made a baseless claim about support capacity of Earth.

You assume wrong. Most people get abortions because the problem is the baby. They cant afford it or support it, for example.

Thats what I meant. It's usually not the pregnancy but about supporting the kid.

I just don't understand why people can't compromise.

I know, right? I mean, why do black people want to sit where they want to on the bus? Can't we just compromise and let them sit in the back?

The sole reason that sex is pleasurable is because nature wants you to procreate. The whole idea behind life is to procreate.
Oh Mr. OP... apparently your partner here thinks that you only have sex to make babies. Tell me, as a homosexual male, do you find that true?

Yes, but the owner of slot B needs to consent, otherwise it is known as rape.
Still requires the actions of someone else. The consent was for sex, not for pregnancy.

Yes, it is. And at its earliest, it is parasitic.

At least you are consistent in applying your own, non-corrupted-by-the-ignorant-masses definition.


Does it fit into the realm of what we would consider a parasite?

Not really, no.

Obviously this is subjective, but the only people I've ever seen argue that a fetus is a parasite are the more rabid pro-choicers in online abortion arguments, usually in the process of making their argument. As I said, it smacks of dehumanization, and it makes me wonder if its not inherent to your acceptance of a pro-choice position? Like, if you didn't think of it as removing a parasite, would you still be OK with it?

This abortion thread sucks. These are some of the most lame-ass old anti-choice bullshit arguments I've heard in a long time.

"Sluts consented to have a baby when they spread their legs, so there's no way they can change their minds now!!!"

"It's human, so you can't abort it!!!"

"If you want to terminate a glob of cells that's been growing inside you for a week, that must mean you think it's okay to kill old retarded people!!!"

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget this one:

"There's a baby shortage!!! There's nothing but KIDS out there to be adopted!!! Where are the BABIES??? Bitches are eatin' mah babies!!!"

Seriously? This is the best they can do after all this time with this issue? There are moths flying out of these arguments. I'm going to bed. I expect to see some FRESH anti-choice bullshit in the morning. Got that?

Obviously this is subjective, but the only people I've ever seen argue that a fetus is a parasite are the more rabid pro-choicers in online abortion arguments, usually in the process of making their argument. As I said, it smacks of dehumanization, and it makes me wonder if its not inherent to your acceptance of a pro-choice position? Like, if you didn't think of it as removing a parasite, would you still be OK with it?

or how about we, oh, I dunno, use words to mean what they actually mean?

Of course not, but what I am arguing is that one should take responsibility for their actions. If you want to have sex, fine, but then you are also taking the risk that you might get pregnant and should take that responsibility.
And the responsible thing to do when you have an unwanted pregnancy is to terminate it before it becomes a burden on your life and the lives of those around you.

...."have been developed"? Oh, god, is this going to turn into an ID thread now?
You're surprised? I'm not.
Anti-Science and Anti-Choice go hand in hand.

At least you are consistent in applying your own, non-corrupted-by-the-ignorant-masses definition.



Not really, no.

Obviously this is subjective, but the only people I've ever seen argue that a fetus is a parasite are the more rabid pro-choicers in online abortion arguments, usually in the process of making their argument. As I said, it smacks of dehumanization, and it makes me wonder if its not inherent to your acceptance of a pro-choice position? Like, if you didn't think of it as removing a parasite, would you still be OK with it?

No, it's not inherent, because many if not most of the "rabid pro-choicers" (whatever that means) who mention that the relationship between embryo and host can reasonably be described as parasitic would have real moral qualms with having an abortion themselves. Me, for example. But the fact remains that I know what the term "parasitic" means, and it's an accurate description of that relationship. If people choose to associate an emotional value with a scientific term, that's their baggage, not mine. I'm just stating that one organism is physically dependent on another for its existence and, in that dependence, does the other organism no quantifiable good and some quantifiable harm. Ergo, parasite.

At least you are consistent in applying your own, non-corrupted-by-the-ignorant-masses definition.
It's something I pride myself upon.


Not really, no.

Obviously this is subjective, but the only people I've ever seen argue that a fetus is a parasite are the more rabid pro-choicers in online abortion arguments, usually in the process of making their argument. As I said, it smacks of dehumanization, and it makes me wonder if its not inherent to your acceptance of a pro-choice position? Like, if you didn't think of it as removing a parasite, would you still be OK with it?
Aside from being of the same species, what single trait does a fetus not share with a parasite?

And yes. I believe that a full grown, adult womans will over her body trumps that of the unborn. Regardless of if it is or is not a parasite.

or how about we, oh, I dunno, use words to mean what they actually mean?

But then I couldn't be using this as a vent to relieve the stress over my badly-injured baby that is now also being frozen and buried in the snow...


:(

Are you freaking kidding me?

Are you FREAKING kidding me?!

You would require that a rape victim potentially risk her life further, lose the support of friends and family, and generally be put through the special hell the assholes of this world reserve for rape victims who go public, as the price she has to pay to keep from bearing her attacker's child?

You have to be kidding me, right?

No, I'm not. Funny how you oppose the logical sane solution just because it doesn't fit within your views. Get overly dramatic about things, doesn't make you look anymore serious about an issue, just less intelligent.

And the responsible thing to do when you have an unwanted pregnancy is to terminate it before it becomes a burden on your life and the lives of those around you.


You're surprised? I'm not.
Anti-Science and Anti-Choice go hand in hand.

It's true, but it's still depressing. I mean, I'm used to stupid arguments in abortion threads, but "sex is DESIGNED to make babies and therefore cannot possibly be used in any other way" is still a pretty sad example thereof.

No, I'm not. Funny how you oppose the logical sane solution just because it doesn't fit within your views. Get overly dramatic about things, doesn't make you look anymore serious about an issue, just less intelligent.

You think it is logical to force a woman to either a) press charges against her rapist, undergo the entire trial process, and deal with all the other ramifications Poli mentioned or b) carry her assailants baby to full term?

Really? Logical? Sane? Fuck....humane for that matter?

How's this for logical. This woman can CHOOSE if she wants to prosecute her assailant. In a separate decision that is equally personal and private, she can then CHOOSE if she wants to carry the baby to term.

It's almost like she would be treated as a fully functioning human being, capable of making decisions on her own...

Oh Mr. OP... apparently your partner here thinks that you only have sex to make babies. Tell me, as a homosexual male, do you find that true?


My partner? wtf?

Aside from being of the same species, what single trait does a fetus not share with a parasite?

Ultimately, children are more beneficial to their parents than not, and the fetus is just an early stage in child development. Most parasites just harm their hosts by definition, but instead of ending with death (save accidents), children go on to spread the DNA of their parents, which is sorta the genetic goal of everyone.

This is a pretty crucial difference.

And yes. I believe that a full grown, adult womans will over her body trumps that of the unborn. Regardless of if it is or is not a parasite.

Alright. But it seems common enough in the abortion debates that I wonder if it's not crucial to at least a few people's position on it.

Also, it is/WAS called Plan B in USA. There aren't very many people up on their senate hearings on this board, is there? Oh wait a minute, they haven't made that public yet have they? JUST WAIT TIL FRIDAY :) Oh, and another thing, get overly dramatic about stuff doesn't make someone look more devoted, just less informed. I will abstain from further comment, as I only appreciate intelligent debate. There is very little of it going on here!

This abortion thread sucks. These are some of the most lame-ass old anti-choice bullshit arguments I've heard in a long time.

"Sluts consented to have a baby when they spread their legs, so there's no way they can change their minds now!!!"

"It's human, so you can't abort it!!!"

"If you want to terminate a glob of cells that's been growing inside you for a week, that must mean you think it's okay to kill old retarded people!!!"

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget this one:

"There's a baby shortage!!! There's nothing but KIDS out there to be adopted!!! Where are the BABIES??? Bitches are eatin' mah babies!!!"

Seriously? This is the best they can do after all this time with this issue? There are moths flying out of these arguments. I'm going to bed. I expect to see some FRESH anti-choice bullshit in the morning. Got that?

Why are you so angry?

It's true, but it's still depressing. I mean, I'm used to stupid arguments in abortion threads, but "sex is DESIGNED to make babies and therefore cannot possibly be used in any other way" is still a pretty sad example thereof.

Poli, please don't kill our baby.

No, I'm not. Funny how you oppose the logical sane solution just because it doesn't fit within your views. Get overly dramatic about things, doesn't make you look anymore serious about an issue, just less intelligent.

How exactly is punishing a rape victim for being raped "logical" or "sane"?

How exactly is it "overly dramatic" to say that SOME rape victims will have rational fear for their safety if they come forward, given that women have been assaulted and murdered for doing so before? How exactly is it "overly dramatic" to say that SOME rape victims will lose friends and family if they come forward, given that many women have experienced that very fact? How exactly is it "overly dramatic" to say that being put on the witness stand and publicly accused of being a slut is a miserable experience, and a damnably common one for victims in rape trials?

But hey, I wouldn't know anything about that, as someone who was assaulted and was explicitly told that I would face many of those consequences if I told anyone. I'm just being "overly dramatic." How "unintelligent" of me. :rolleyes:

And, I said nothing about a trial. I just said file a report, whether they investigate it or not, is up to her...God, I know its pee-sized, but try to use your brain will you??? What's the matter, does that idea actually make sense to you, you seem to be having trouble debating it logically....BUH BYE!

The sole reason that sex is pleasurable is because nature wants you to procreate.
The hell with nature. If you're going to even be TALKING about nature, you should at first clarify what you're claiming the distinction between natural things and artificial things (which are technically natural since they're an indirect result of the natural world) is in the first place.

Though if you're talking about nature as being what happens outside of and/or before human civilization, (ie. leading to it) it might be an idea to consider that what's normal in nature (ie. a total bloodbath of survival of the fittest) isn't considered acceptable in human society. Human society doesn't have as high a death rate as nature (and a high death rate is something I wouldn't consider desirable) and having a high birth rate would contribute to more overpopulation, increasing the death rate again. Granted, we can alter the Earth's carrying capacity through technology. But technology can only do so much. We need to bite the bullet sooner or later and stop thinking of human reproduction as a good thing.

Besides, I wouldn't want to pass on my type 1 diabetic genes anyway. If nature "wants" me to do that, I refuse to do what it wants after it gave me this disease in the first place.

Why are you so angry?

Chicks, man.

and, i said nothing about a trial. I just said file a report, whether they investigate it or not, is up to her...god, i know its pee-sized, but try to use your brain will you??? What's the matter, does that idea actually make sense to you, you seem to be having trouble debating it logically....buh bye!

my opinion is relavent! I have four posts! Pay attention to me!

Oh Mr. OP... apparently your partner here thinks that you only have sex to make babies. Tell me, as a homosexual male, do you find that true?

I've known Nova for a while. I suspect(apologies if I'm wrong) that this isn't about the 'sanctity of life' for him. I suspect it's about population demographics.

And, I said nothing about a trial. I just said file a report, whether they investigate it or not, is up to her...God, I know its pee-sized, but try to use your brain will you??? What's the matter, does that idea actually make sense to you, you seem to be having trouble debating it logically....BUH BYE!

Are you leaving?

I've known Nova for a while. I suspect(apologies if I'm wrong) that this isn't about the 'sanctity of life' for him. I suspect it's about population demographics.

Oh u mean "white people are dying"?

No, its about life. For me at least.

Are you leaving?

we can only hope eh?

Ultimately, children are more beneficial to their parents than not, and the fetus is just an early stage in child development. Most parasites just harm their hosts by definition, but instead of ending with death (save accidents), children go on to spread the DNA of their parents, which is sorta the genetic goal of everyone.

This is a pretty crucial difference.

Almost as crucial a difference as the one between "fetus" and "infant".

But if it makes you more comfortable (and in no small part because I really need to go to sleep very soon), I'll amend my phrasing to "parasite-like" and "parasitesque".


Also, it is/WAS called Plan B in USA. There aren't very many people up on their senate hearings on this board, is there? Oh wait a minute, they haven't made that public yet have they? JUST WAIT TIL FRIDAY :) Oh, and another thing, get overly dramatic about stuff doesn't make someone look more devoted, just less informed. I will abstain from further comment, as I only appreciate intelligent debate. There is very little of it going on here!
Now tell me what songs going to come on the radio next...

The last thing that I'd like to point out, is that this thread isn't really about abortion. It's about societies major problem and weakness, women. You keep referring to it yourselves, as such, in the fact that a woman can't do this...a woman can't fight back...a woman would be crazy if this or that were to happen. OMG>>>STOP> We know women are weak and have to be looked after. Just like they can't make the man pull out his penis before ejaculation...THEY ARE JUST TO HELPLESS!!! POOR HELPLESS VICTIMS~! Why is abortion even being debated. Women are so weak they should just be locked up and let out for reproduction only. I think every man would agree it would solve a lot of problems. And the abortion debate!

And, I said nothing about a trial. I just said file a report, whether they investigate it or not, is up to her...God, I know its pee-sized, but try to use your brain will you??? What's the matter, does that idea actually make sense to you, you seem to be having trouble debating it logically....BUH BYE!

Well, filing a report is generally a step towards prosecution, which may result in a trial.

I guess you could file a report but preface it with "please don't do anything that may result in a trial". Make for a very short Law & Order episode. 42 Minutes of Jerry Obach reading the paper and making his Fantasy Football moves online.

Pee-sized? Is that bigger or smaller than pea-sized?

EDIT: Don't worry. Some very intelligent people have poor spelling.

AND OH YEAH...this is too much fun now, I might not be going anywhere since all just put all the poor weak women in their places...Yep, I said IT! :snap:

The last thing that I'd like to point out, is that this thread isn't really about abortion. It's about societies major problem and weakness, women. You keep referring to it yourselves, as such, in the fact that a woman can't do this...a woman can't fight back...a woman would be crazy if this or that were to happen. OMG>>>STOP> We know women are weak and have to be looked after. Just like they can't make the man pull out his penis before ejaculation...THEY ARE JUST TO HELPLESS!!! POOR HELPLESS VICTIMS~! Why is abortion even being debated. Women are so weak they should just be locked up and let out for reproduction only. I think every man would agree it would solve a lot of problems. And the abortion debate!

what the fuck man, 5 posts and you already jumped the shark?

Fucking weak.

I've known Nova for a while. I suspect(apologies if I'm wrong) that this isn't about the 'sanctity of life' for him. I suspect it's about population demographics.

Oh u mean "white people are dying"?

No, its about life. For me at least.

Oh btw, what do u mean u know me? My NSG past been that long??

Oh u mean "white people are dying"?

No, its about life. For me at least.

Then why are fetuses in rape victims less valued?

Well, filing a report is generally a step towards prosecution, which may result in a trial.

I guess you could file a report but preface it with "please don't do anything that may result in a trial". Make for a very short Law & Order episode. 42 Minutes of Jerry Obach reading the paper and making his Fantasy Football moves online.

Pee-sized? Is that bigger or smaller than pea-sized?

Jerry Orbach is DEAD you bastard, he's fucking DEAD.

You insensitive jew prick.

This just in:


Emertonia has 7 posts(this one included) and is rapidly gaining popularity!!

The last thing that I'd like to point out, is that this thread isn't really about abortion. It's about societies major problem and weakness, women. You keep referring to it yourselves, as such, in the fact that a woman can't do this...a woman can't fight back...a woman would be crazy if this or that were to happen. OMG>>>STOP> We know women are weak and have to be looked after. Just like they can't make the man pull out his penis before ejaculation...THEY ARE JUST TO HELPLESS!!! POOR HELPLESS VICTIMS~! Why is abortion even being debated. Women are so weak they should just be locked up and let out for reproduction only. I think every man would agree it would solve a lot of problems. And the abortion debate!

Weren't you leaving?

Wait...this is a magic trick just like your predictions of the future, isn't it!

Now pull a rabbit out of my ear.

Oh btw, what do u mean u know me? My NSG past been that long??

Pretty long. Weren't you around in 2003-2004?

Now pull a rabbit out of my ear.

OK, but it won't be a rabbit.

And it isn't going to be your ear

Then why are fetuses in rape victims less valued?

Because blacks rape white women.

Did you seriously think I was thinking something like that? Why?

what the fuck man, 5 posts and you already jumped the shark?

Fucking weak.

Trolling is serious business.

what the fuck man, 5 posts and you already jumped the shark?

Fucking weak.

Well, 5 is one more than your boyfriends 4.

The last thing that I'd like to point out, is that this thread isn't really about abortion. It's about societies major problem and weakness, women. You keep referring to it yourselves, as such, in the fact that a woman can't do this...a woman can't fight back...a woman would be crazy if this or that were to happen. OMG>>>STOP> We know women are weak and have to be looked after. Just like they can't make the man pull out his penis before ejaculation...THEY ARE JUST TO HELPLESS!!! POOR HELPLESS VICTIMS~! Why is abortion even being debated. Women are so weak they should just be locked up and let out for reproduction only. I think every man would agree it would solve a lot of problems. And the abortion debate!

Somebody, please, whoever has her phone number, call Muravyets and wake her up. Please. Tell whatever local college baseball player she's cougaring tonight to dismount and stay hot, do some jumping jacks, work the bag a little, whatever it takes for him not to cool down or cramp up, but somebody call Mur and wake her up so she can read and reply to this. Please.

Please.













Please.

Pretty long. Weren't you around in 2003-2004?

Who are you confusing me with?

OK, but it won't be a rabbit.

And it isn't going to be your ear

...I like where this is going.

Well, 5 is one more than your boyfriends 4.

my boyfriends? No honey, the one I have wears me out.

...I like where this is going.

http://www.teamdrunkottawa.com/funnay/images/fry-see-what-you-did-there.jpg

Jerry Orbach is DEAD you bastard, he's fucking DEAD.

You insensitive jew prick.

I'm a ghost, and I have access to the Afterlife Network.

Jerry Orbach is still making Law & Order: May I Ask Who Killed You? Oh? Great, Thanks.

What I've really been enjoying is BattleStar Galactica starring Lorne Greene and River Phoenix.

EDIT: Don't worry. Some very intelligent people have poor spelling.

I am going to fucking murder you.

Erm, I mean, I'm going to fucking abort you. In your sleep. With a melon baller. To your genitals.

Slowly.

Somebody, please, whoever has her phone number, call Muravyets and wake her up. Please. Tell whatever local college baseball player she's cougaring tonight to dismount and stay hot, do some jumping jacks, work the bag a little, whatever it takes for him not to cool down or cramp up, but somebody call Mur and wake her up so she can read and reply to this. Please.

Please.










Please.

Well, do as you must. I love where the topics are headed now everyone is actually using their brains. I can see it's a problem for you, and you have to call for someone else to do it. That's ok though honey, just keep trying!!!!

my boyfriends? No honey, the one I have wears me out.

I hear he looks great in a corset, too. ;)

This just in:


Emertonia has 7 posts(this one included) and is rapidly gaining popularity!!

Bad spelling is bad. Bad arithmatic is worse.

Almost as crucial a difference as the one between "fetus" and "infant".

Not nearly. I mean neither 'fetus' nor 'infant' has inherently bad connotations, while 'parasite' sure as shit (no pun intended) does.

But if it makes you more comfortable (and in no small part because I really need to go to sleep very soon), I'll amend my phrasing to "parasite-like" and "parasitesque".

Sorta, not really. Its more accurate but the context is still in a 'fetuses are horrible things and they must be destroyed!' sense instead of a woman's right to abort if she so chooses.

Anyway, gnight.

Well, do as you must. I love where the topics are headed now everyone is actually using their brains. I can see it's a problem for you, and you have to call for someone else to do it. That's ok though honey, just keep trying!!!!

What was your point again? I forgot after all the flamebait. Can you restate your position?

I am going to fucking murder you.

Erm, I mean, I'm going to fucking abort you. In your sleep. With a melon baller. To your genitals.

Slowly.

You mispelled "make love to". It has no "r" or "d", and its not one word.

You also misspelled "blew". It as no a, o, r, or t.

Emertonia will rejoin us after a short break.
Three days for trolling and flamebaiting, to be precise.

Emertonia will rejoin us after a short break.
Three days for trolling and flamebaiting, to be precise.

awww. It was kinda getting fun :(

I hear he looks great in a corset, too. ;)Know what's great? When all the horses cross the finish line.
Know what's sad? I evidently had one horse asleep at the gate.
Know what's great? He finally made it.

Not nearly. I mean neither 'fetus' nor 'infant' has inherently bad connotations, while 'parasite' sure as shit (no pun intended) does.I'm interested in what is denoted, not connoted.



Sorta, not really. Its more accurate but the context is still in a 'fetuses are horrible things and they must be destroyed!' sense instead of a woman's right to abort if she so chooses.

Anyway, gnight.It would be stupid for me to want all the little shits destroyed...first my sister would be out of a job, then me, and then my dad.

Besides, some of the little shits are actually pretty cool.

Emertonia will rejoin us after a short break.
Three days for trolling and flamebaiting, to be precise.

Emertonia will be pleased to know that Katganistan is female, oh the irony.

Also, Poli's brain is pee-sized, he was entirely correct on that one.

awww. It was kinda getting fun :(

Yeah, I have to admit that as flames go, being told that my brain is the size of urine was almost cute. :p

Damn, Kat, I wanted to see his response to what I was about to post. :D

(Nothing offensive, it was well-reasoned, but you just had to get him before i posted. ;))

Well, do as you must. I love where the topics are headed now everyone is actually using their brains. I can see it's a problem for you, and you have to call for someone else to do it. That's ok though honey, just keep trying!!!!

You reasoned that women are "weak" because they can't universally and infallibly defend themselves from rape, and I'm not using my brain?

I called for Muravyets because her character class gets more experience points for killing your particular species of troll than I do.

She's a 15th Level Easily Enraged Warrior Amazon, and you're a minor sexist troll, worth a 1.5 experience multiplier if she kills you.

I am a 20th Level 20th Century Eminent Undead Russian American Philosopher and I only get 0.25X exp for defeating you.

Emertonia will rejoin us after a short break.
Three days for trolling and flamebaiting, to be precise.

Any punishments for me, obviously I made people angry for making this thread.

being told that my brain is the size of urine

Wait what? I mean, dont take this the wrong way, but, Being a liquid, wouldnt it have to be the size of the container holding the urine?

Yeah, I have to admit that as flames go, being told that my brain is the size of urine was almost cute. :p

I missed that. How much urine?

Any punishments for me, obviously I made people angry for making this thread.

Was it your intent to piss people off?

Damn, Kat, I wanted to see his response to what I was about to post. :D

(Nothing offensive, it was well-reasoned, but you just had to get him before i posted. ;))

You shouldn't feed trolls!

Like I just didn't not do!

Was it your intent to piss people off?

No, I'm surprised that people are giving such strong reactions.

I'm interested in what is denoted, not connoted.



It would be stupid for me to want all the little shits destroyed...first my sister would be out of a job, then me, and then my dad.

Besides, some of the little shits are actually pretty cool.

Some of them, sometimes. I guess. But for the most part they are like parasites... except not as absolutely testicle-withdrawingly horrifying. I mean, Jesus. It's why I constantly check my own defecation. I mean it'd be strange and disconcerting if I found a fetus there... not that unusual but certainly in the realm of possibility.... while I think I'd just start screaming bloody murder if I say, saw a tapeworm. I'd scream myself blind, and never ever stop.

You reasoned that women are "weak" because they can't universally and infallibly defend themselves from rape, and I'm not using my brain?

I called for Muravyets because her character class gets more experience points for killing your particular species of troll than I do.

She's a 15th Level Easily Enraged Warrior Amazon, and you're a minor sexist troll, worth a 1.5 experience multiplier if she kills you.

I am a 20th Level 20th Century Eminent Undead Russian American Philosopher and I only get 0.25X exp for defeating you.

on the other hand you get a 10x exp bonus for finding the most efficient option.

Unfortunately for you, we can't actually tell you how much that is, since 10x exp bonus for finding the most efficient option = 10x exp bonus for finding the most efficient option.

Because blacks rape white women.

Did you seriously think I was thinking something like that? Why?

Of course not. But out of curiosity, why do you allow for that exception in your op?

Who are you confusing me with?

I knew someone with a very similar name who was... hmm... white supremacist might be a bit strong... more of a racial purist/nationalist. You sound a lot like him. Especially when you talk about 'baby shortage'. That's often brought up by people afraid of immigrants and the 'end of their race'.

You have my sincerest apologies over my confusion and misunderstanding.

However my confusion stems partially from the fact that being non-religious, what you base your belief that the life of a fetus is more important than the free will of a woman is a mystery to me.

No, I'm surprised that people are giving such strong reactions.

It is pretty uncommon for people to get worked up over abortion...

I missed that. How much urine?

all I can think of while looking at your avatar is "I find your lack of pants...disturbing"

all I can think of while looking at your avatar is "I find your lack of pants...disturbing"

I owe it significantly to LG.

Any punishments for me, obviously I made people angry for making this thread.
You're arguing your point of view. I may disagree with your point of view, but there's nothing wrong with you arguing it.

He was trolling and flamebaiting. Two very different animals.

Of course, if you WANT to get warned or forum banned, you could leave off defending your argument and follow Emertonia down the road of taunting people...?

Of course not. But out of curiosity, why do you allow for that exception in your op?


Because rape is very traumatic so. It's actually redundant too though, police should give u the morning after pill as the standard procedure.


I knew someone with a very similar name who was... hmm... white supremacist might be a bit strong... more of a racial purist/nationalist. You sound a lot like him. Especially when you talk about 'baby shortage'. That's often brought up by people afraid of immigrants and the 'end of their race'.

You have my sincerest apologies over my confusion and misunderstanding.

However my confusion stems partially from the fact that being non-religious, what you base your belief that the life of a fetus is more important than the free will of a woman.

Is it because you are American that you think that you have to be religious to criticize abortion?

I missed that. How much urine?

As far as I can tell, not so much any specific volume of urine, but rather the size of the concept of urine. Which, I'm assuming, is fairly large, given that urine is a fairly universal concept.

You're arguing your point of view. I may disagree, but there's nothing wrong with you arguing it.

He was trolling and flamebaiting.

Two very different animals.

Of course, if you WANT to get warned or forum banned, you could leave off defending your argument and follow Emertonia down the road of taunting people...?

Hmm, a forum ban sounds not bad. I should actually be studying now.

Is it because you are American that you think that you have to be religious to criticize abortion?

It's probably because I never encountered someone that believed that the life of a fetus trumps free will without a book endorsed by a man in a funny hat representing an invisible man telling him he's supposed to. But then again, we have more than our share down here. :p

As far as I can tell, not so much any specific volume of urine, but rather the size of the concept of urine. Which, I'm assuming, is fairly large, given that urine is a fairly universal concept.

So... the size of the.. but if there's no amount then... how do you... *pulls hair out and runs out of the thread screaming*

It is pretty uncommon for people to get worked up over abortion...

No, I mean I never defended it being made illegal.

I guess its because most of the respondants have been American, with their usual bicategorical perspectives (good guys-bad guys / conservatives - liberals / pro choice - pro life / republicans - democrats / )

Btw, thats not an anti american comment, just an observation.

Hmm, a forum ban sounds not bad. I should actually be studying now.
Then shoo. Shoo!

It's probably because I never encountered someone that believed that the life of a fetus trumps free will without a book endorsed by a man in a funny hat representing an invisible man telling him he's supposed to. But then again, we have more than our share down here. :p

Read the OP, I'm also vegetarian. Tho I eat eggs, that may be bit hypocritical.

Then shoo. Shoo!

I swear I'm not addicted, I can stop whenever I want.

Read the OP, I'm also vegetarian. Tho I eat eggs, that may be bit hypocritical.

I think this brings up a good point...Is the eating of Eggs abortion for Chickens?

Somebody, please, whoever has her phone number, call Muravyets and wake her up. Please. Tell whatever local college baseball player she's cougaring tonight to dismount and stay hot, do some jumping jacks, work the bag a little, whatever it takes for him not to cool down or cramp up, but somebody call Mur and wake her up so she can read and reply to this. Please.
Wait... what?

You shouldn't feed trolls! I'm not going to be responsible if they starve to death, then. :D

Like I just didn't not do!Double. Fucking. Negative. Bad. Just. Bad. :mad:

Read the OP, I'm also vegetarian. Tho I eat eggs, that may be bit hypocritical.

Not in my opinion. Then again, I'm an omnivore that can actually eat a meatless meal and still enjoy it.