Pages

4/27/12

I just watched an abortion video.

Within 2 min, I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.

I understand the pro-choice argument, but thing is, you're carrying ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

Comments (275)

Best Response
4/27/12

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/27/12

Pro-life. You're not me, so idgaf

I hate victims who respect their executioners

4/27/12

What? Are you also going to stop eating meat after you watch videos of an abattoir?

I do know some people who have, though, so I guess it's not that far-fetched...

4/27/12

Well, thing is, during that video, I could see the little thing still moving (as he was alive).

And that innocence just killed me. I mean, it was a f*cking murder.

4/27/12

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

4/27/12

Are second/third trimester abortions really legal? Because that is beyond is fucked up.

4/27/12

Depends on exactly how far along the pregnancy is, Jeff. 21 weeks or less and the fetus isn't considered viable on its own, or something like that.

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Life is precious. Intelligent life is even more precious when you realize our current situation (i.e. alone on this small planet, lost in a hostile universe)

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Go watch the video. I sent it to you.

Then give me your feedback.

4/27/12

I believe in the right to choice up to a certain stage of pregnancy. I agree that aborting a fetus that is 4-6+ months along is wrong, but, like Angus said, at a certain stage the fetus isn't viable on its own and doesn't have a lot of brain functionality. When to exactly draw the line, I don't know. Leave that to the experts.

Not a personal attack or anything, but I've always struggled with the idea that "life is precious/priceless". Everyone says that, and it's nice to think it, but if you truly believed it you would have to sell most of your possessions and start giving to charities that help feed starving children. Hell, I could easily move to Brooklyn and use the $500 in rent savings each month to save like, what, 10-15 lives?

4/27/12

abdel, what about cases of incest or rape

4/27/12

I agree that abortions should be allowed for cases like incest and rape but I don't see why victims of those crimes would wait till their third trimester. They have six months to make that choice which should be plenty of time. An abortion past six months is just cruel and inhumane as a baby is almost formed.

Abdel, do you mind sending me that video also?

4/27/12

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

4/27/12

Intelligent life is precious. The majority of people are not intelligent. I think abortion is kind of dumb since people have countless measures so they never get to that point, but I don't want the government getting involved in personal choice.

How do you feel about national healthcare? Caring about an innocent life shouldn't end once they are born.

4/27/12

Watched the video. So... because it looks like a baby and it's alive, you're against abortion?

Me, I see it a little differently. I think abortion has a net positive effect on general welfare of the population.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
4/27/12
Edmundo Braverman:

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

100% agree. I became pro-life (within reason) a few years back. I have no problem with early (<8weeks) abortions and Plan B... but when should you ever need a late abortion now?

Other than cases where the mother's life is in danger, the woman likely (a) didn't use the pill (b) didn't use the morning after pill, and (c) sat on her hands for some length of time.

Also agree that more responsible reproduction would be a smart move. There is no good reason to have 7 billion people. And children, in this era of birth control, should not be born to people who have no means of providing for them.

4/27/12

I am anti abortion. However, I would be for a society what was pro choice if it acknowledged that it was killing babies, and that had voted specifically on allowing for the killing of babies until the whatever week of gestation, JUST SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE FACED THE GRAVITY OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

"...all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

- Schopenhauer

4/27/12

Pro-life and vegetarian right here. What I can't stand more than anything are vegetarian liberals who are pro-choice/anti-life and like to make their positions known.

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Well, thing is, during that video, I could see the little thing still moving (as he was alive).

And that innocence just killed me. I mean, it was a f*cking murder.

Didn't know they give abortions that late

"One should recognize reality even when one doesn't like it, indeed, especially when one doesn't like it." - Charlie Munger

4/27/12

how about this rape/incest thing

i'd like to know if it is about protecting life or punishing women for getting knocked up

4/27/12

Pro life....

There was a political cartoon a while ago in some periodical and it was a man upset that God (this isn't a deity conversation) never sent someone to cure aids, cancer, war and poverty. Then the diety from above goes " I did and you aborted them"

Eventus stultorum magister.

4/27/12

Because you can only be for or against anything? There is no in between? If you watched a gruesome vidoe of open heart surgery, would you be against that too?

Are you for or against raises: What if it's your raise? What if it's a union boss? What if someone is being promoted? It's not so cut and dry, now is it, there are other considerations.

Beyond general elections, reality is more complicated than simple up/down votes.

I'm pro-choice, but encourage life: abortion is a major proceedure and should be treated as such, and I like children. When people are stupidly anti-choice, I just tell them I'm pro-death and that they can suck it.

Get busy living

4/27/12

i-pro-life...respect for life

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

NICE. Silly people want to get midieval? GET MIDIEVAL!

Get busy living

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

I like you.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to melvvvar
4/27/12
melvvvar:

i'd like to know if it is about protecting life or punishing women for getting knocked up

It's about letting the person most likely to have to raise the kid have a say. If there was serious debate on the ridiculous topic of "punishing women", then be forthright and issue a summons, don't try an endrun around the formal system. Or start snipping men. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

If it was about protecting life, how about start with the mulititude of other areas where life is being wontonly abused: start with the miserable failure of a healthcare system in the US, them move on to diet, substance abuse, smoking, crime, and poverty. Then, move on to war and ethnic cleansing, several million people died over the last few decades and they barely made the news. Use this in a debate and watch them change the subject or get nasty because there's really no way around this logic.

Get busy living

4/27/12

Pro-Choice up until a certain point in the pregnancy. I don't think late term abortions should be legal unless:

--the mother's life is at risk
--the babby is extremely fucked up / won't survive after birth (I don't know the technical terms, but the general reasons why late term abortions actually happen). As I understand it, these two points often go hand in hand.

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine. And I don't want to hear the "it's the possibility of life" argument, because it's total bunk. If you believe that, then stop jerking off.

To add: the entire argument that life begins at conception is complete and total non-sense. It's based on pseudo-science Catholic church crap and should not be taken seriously in the abortion debate. "omg the sperm is in the egg, it's a human life!" Bullshit.

Lastly: it's not going anywhere. So, why not keep it legal and safe instead of having to force women into dangerous black market abortions. Plus, we've got WAY bigger fish to fry than worrying about whether or not 1,000 celled zygotes get sucked out through a vacuum tube.

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
4/27/12
Edmundo Braverman:

As an adopted kid, it'd be pretty fucked up if I weren't pro life. That said, I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

Steve Jobs was supposedly pro-choice, he certainly had no qualm supporting all those pro-choice Politicians. I guess he truly believed that what he created at Apple was nothing special.

Too late for second-guessing Too late to go back to sleep.

4/27/12

In a situation involving me personally, I will certainly be pro-life (although that's a little empty, since I'm a dude). I would never vote pro-life, however. Ironic how a bunch of old white men think they can tell women what to do with their bodies.

4/27/12

Haven't read the whole string of comments yet, but I'm a poli sci minor. Had a class where we dedicated an entire section on this. In essence, it is not a person. It is not a viable life form as it is unsustainable outside the womb. Also, it is the women's choice. Domestic affairs are private and personal, no regulations should prohibit their actions. Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion? Even though you can't choose, if you decide YOU don't want a kid either, wouldn't you rather abort than end up paying child support for the next 18 years when you might have other things to focus on? People shouldn't have children till their ready, financially and emotionally. If you have one before that, all your doing is fucking up the kid's life and your own.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to JeffSkilling
4/27/12
JeffSkilling:

Are second/third trimester abortions really legal? Because that is beyond is fucked up.

They are only legal in some cases (called still born abortion, won't go into details, but it's nasty), in which the birth of this child (c sect or other wise) is detrimental to the mother's health and life threatening.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I'll be pro-life and willing to legislate women's bodies the minute men start getting snipped for unpaid child support.

Have a nice day!

In reply to melvvvar
4/27/12
melvvvar:

abdel, what about cases of incest or rape

Minor's are allowed to only with parent's consent, or court motion (in case of incest when parent may not approve, for some sick reason).

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Positives far outweigh the negatives and I agree with TNA in this case, any situation that limits the amount of government intrusion on personal freedoms is best.

Also, there are something like 5M kids in the foster system currently. Telling someone they should have a child and put it up for adoption if they can't afford it/don't want it is retarded.

For all you pro lifers, what about in cases of rape? The same thing happens to that poor defenseless fetus, what do you do in that case?

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

4/27/12

Also to point out to people, a lot of people abort because they are unable to provide or not ready (e.g. teen, low income, etc). Allowing them this option is vital. Is forcing them to have the child really going to be the best thing for that child? Granted adoption is an option, but it is not always possible in certain circumstances. I know that the study was sort of proved null, but the micro study on abortions in Freakonomics is still very intriguing and valid in my opinion.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Only during the work week.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

Get busy living

In reply to Johnny Ringo
4/27/12
Johnny Ringo:

Pro life....

There was a political cartoon a while ago in some periodical and it was a man upset that God (this isn't a deity conversation) never sent someone to cure aids, cancer, war and poverty. Then the diety from above goes " I did and you aborted them"

I've seen that, but it also could've been the next Hitler. See my comment above about who actually usually needs these procedures. The value of life for these children in most cases is not that great.

Also, to everyone saying you're prolife bc of abortions after 2nd trimester, that answer is irrelevant because there is actually a cut off point. You can't say you aren't pro choice if you think it is okay before the 2nd trimester because that is really the only option.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Haven't read the whole string of comments yet, but I'm a poli sci minor. Had a class where we dedicated an entire section on this. In essence, it is not a person. It is not a viable life form as it is unsustainable outside the womb. Also, it is the women's choice. Domestic affairs are private and personal, no regulations should prohibit their actions. Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion? Even though you can't choose, if you decide YOU don't want a kid either, wouldn't you rather abort than end up paying child support for the next 18 years when you might have other things to focus on? People shouldn't have children till their ready, financially and emotionally. If you have one before that, all your doing is fucking up the kid's life and your own.

Wow, so you've had a section of one semester of your minor in a bullshit subject talk about abortion and now you can inform us of the truth? The adults are talking, let us know how sophomore year goes.

To those throwing around the rape/incest argument, those account for less than 1% of abortions in this country: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Unite...

Anyone that has seen video of a fetus before birth but thinks that there's some magic moment where they go from non-human to human is delusional.

In reply to TheKing
4/27/12
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

"Sincerity is an overrated virtue" - Milton Friedman

In reply to UFOinsider
4/27/12
UFOinsider:
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

This is true and unfair to men, however I respect the logic behind it. If you knock up some crazy chick who wants the baby when you're both 19 and you plan on going to college and having a career, it can really screw things up. But I guess equal equity in this case is not really an option.

This would be an interesting thing to research, have there ever been any cases regarding a male trying to get out of child care on grounds of his lack of choice in the matter?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Pro-choice. Only for first trimester abortions though.

In reply to RagnarDanneskjold
4/27/12
RagnarDanneskjold:

Pro-choice. Only for first trimester abortions though.

If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
UFOinsider:
streetwannabe:

Furthermore, if you're the father, wouldn't you want the option of abortion?

There doesn't seem to be a practical way for the man to have much of a say after conception without violating the woman's rights...the reciprocal is allowing woman a say in a guy getting snipped. NOT HAPPENING. Anyone have any thoughts on this? I've thought it over and it seems that with all of the talk of pro-choice, the guy doesn't seem to have one after conception. It seems that the ethics meet reality and lose. Anyone have a take on this?

This is true and unfair to men, however I respect the logic behind it. If you knock up some crazy chick who wants the baby when you're both 19 and you plan on going to college and having a career, it can really screw things up. But I guess equal equity in this case is not really an option.

This would be an interesting thing to research, have there ever been any cases regarding a male trying to get out of child care on grounds of his lack of choice in the matter?

Not paying for the kid, well, I can't respect a man that doesn't. It seems that on this issue, there is no middle ground. Anyone else?

Get busy living

4/27/12

abortion is an issue that i won't touch with a 10 foot pole.

Money Never Sleeps? More like Money Never SUCKS amirite?!?!?!?

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Life is precious. Intelligent life is even more precious when you realize our current situation (i.e. alone on this small planet, lost in a hostile universe)

So what you are saying is that if the fetus has downs, it should get aborted?
Because the average iq of down syndrome kids is right on par with the iq of dogs and parrots.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Angus Macgyver
4/27/12
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

4/27/12

Pro-life. And I am astonished at the false comparison of Angus. If an animal moves, it means the animal is alive. So what? But if a human moves, it means the HUMAN is alive. It is wrong to kill innocent humans. The OP is asserting that it is a human and it is alive, and he claims what he saw in the video as evidence. What do slaughterhouses have to do with anything?

4/27/12

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

More is good, all is better

4/27/12

Also, question for everyone:

When you say you are pro life, does that mean you'd support legislation prohibiting all abortion?

Or is this more of a personal moral stand point you choose to observe?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

I am pro choice, and you seem to be? but food for thought, are people on life support living or dead? does this make them as disposable as an unsustainable fetus?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

In reply to TheKing
4/27/12
TheKing:
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

Good post. Did not know this.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I find that there tends to be a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. People will beat their drum and yell Pro-Life all day...until their thirteen year-old daughter gets pregnant.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

I am pro choice, and you seem to be? but food for thought, are people on life support living or dead? does this make them as disposable as an unsustainable fetus?

I am pro-choice, and I would even say pro-abortion.
Giving birth to retarded and crippled children for parents' emotional indulgence is utterly idiotic and irresponsible.
We need quality workforce, not resource drains.
(however, I maintain the choice should remain with the parents)

More is good, all is better

In reply to RagnarDanneskjold
4/27/12
RagnarDanneskjold:

I find that there tends to be a lot of hypocrisy when it comes to this issue. People will beat their drum and yell Pro-Life all day...until their thirteen year-old daughter gets pregnant.

Get busy living

In reply to OhYeah
4/27/12
OhYeah:
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

Technically we still are a clump of cells

In reply to Surefire
4/27/12
Surefire:
OhYeah:
TheKing:

That said, a clump of cells is not a human being. If you take care of it early, it's fine.

A fetus is only a clump of cells for a very short time. At just 5-6 weeks from conception the heart starts beating. I think many people may not realize that.

Technically we still are a clump of cells

Haha, so are you condoning murder?

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Well, yes. It's an argument that's taken a flying leap off of the slippery slope.

What it probably boils down to is - do you think a fetus is a living human being? If you do, then you're probably going to be anti-abortion. If you don't, then you'll likely be pro-choice. And if you think that there's some arbitrary sort of line during the pregnancy where the fetus becomes more human than clump-of-cells, then chances are that you will support abortion before that point, and oppose it after.

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
TheKing:
streetwannabe:

Maybe a touchy issue, but aborted embryos are an important factor in stem cell research. Repairing paralysis for example, or healing AIDs, cancer, MS. The list goes on. These are benefits of this perhaps otherwise considered unacceptable act.

False. Aborted embryos aren't used, don't let the obsessed pro-life jeeeeeezus crowd fool you.

"Embryonic stem cells, as their name suggests, are derived from embryos. Most embryonic stem cells are derived from embryos that develop from eggs that have been fertilized in vitro--in an in vitro fertilization clinic--and then donated for research purposes with informed consent of the donors. They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body."
http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics3.asp

Shit has nothing to do with abortion.

Good post. Did not know this.

Yes but that's the point, fertilzing eggs in vitro just to kill them later and use them for research is the same thing as aborting cells that came about naturally. This is an extreme example, but imagine cloning someone just to later kill them and use them for their organs (i.e. The Island). Also, again, I really don't care that much about abortion, but let the record show that not only can we obtain stem cells easily from exisiting people, but scientific rigor ALWAYS has us test theories like these in mice/other animals first. Studies show that adult stem cells have benefits but never have they ever been able to reproduce the miraculous benefits of embryonic ones as well as adult ones in mice whatsoever. For some stupid reason though, people think that they may have benefits in humans without any evidence to suggest so other than speculation. It's really an extremely unscientific approach. Never do any drugs or therapy treatments advance to human testing unless they can find some sort of benefit in lower animals. Talk to any MD about it who works in the area.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/08/23/study-embryonic...

The WSO Advantage - Land Your Dream Job

Financial Modeling Training

IB Templates, M&A, LBO, Valuation.

Wall St. Interview Secrets Revealed

30,000+ sold & REAL questions.

Resume Help from Finance Pros

Land More Interviews.

Find Your Mentor

Realistic Mock Interviews.

4/27/12

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

I would have to say I am pro-life, but sit on the fence as to whether or not I care enough about what other people choose. I grew up going to church so it's something that I wouldn't want to do, but I also understand that you can't legislate morality.

There are a couple issues that are critical in the abortion argument. First is when life actually starts and the inevitable follow-up 'but' questions (as mentioned above)...but what about rape and incest. Clearly the second part doesn't have an easy answer but I often wonder about the first. If a person is alive until their heart stops, wouldn't that indicate that they are alive once their heart starts?

Now, I'm not arguing a certain position here, so much as just raising some questions. If I shot you, I will likely be charged with attempted murder. If I shot you and your heart stops, I will likely be charged with murder. If the heartbeat determines death, should it also not determine life?

As for rape and incest, I don't know where I saw it, but recall reading that rape and incest abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions...so while it is an issue to some, it's more of a straw man when it comes to the abortion argument.

Personally I think adoption should be an option for all pregnant women who don't think they want their baby but sadly, in nearly all cases, it's rarely encouraged. I recall reading about the adoption statistics for Planned Parenthood and they are, almost literally, nonexistent...almost every woman that walks into Planned Parenthood pregnant looking for her options ends up aborting her child/fetus/cell/embryo.

Anyways, I do think there is a cause for concern when you factor in the aspect of moral decay. What has a society come to when it doesn't protect it's most vulnerable, the young and the old? The irony in all of this is how people, mainly the left, champion the right for women to choose but fail to realize that in doing so the woman is giving up her most sacred possession, her womb. As is pointed out in this video, is there any other person on earth that should be more safe than a child in their mother's womb? It's like there has been such a severe push for women to assert their rights that they are almost leaving behind the characteristics that make them a woman to begin with. Just food for thought.

Anyways, this video was sent to me recently and is rather great. This isn't your standard abortion hit piece but it does make you think about where you stand and your choice about a number of things...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

4/27/12

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to Flake
4/27/12
Flake:

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Laughed out loud in work, bravo.

Pro choice, only first trimester abortions.

In reply to Whgm45
4/27/12
Whgm45:
Flake:

Forget fetus, I don't even consider babies human until they are able to walk me through a DCF.

Laughed out loud in work, bravo.

Pro choice, only first trimester abortions.

Haha, me too, trying to contain myself in an office with three other people

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:

I would have to say I am pro-life, but sit on the fence as to whether or not I care enough about what other people choose. I grew up going to church so it's something that I wouldn't want to do, but I also understand that you can't legislate morality.

There are a couple issues that are critical in the abortion argument. First is when life actually starts and the inevitable follow-up 'but' questions (as mentioned above)...but what about rape and incest. Clearly the second part doesn't have an easy answer but I often wonder about the first. If a person is alive until their heart stops, wouldn't that indicate that they are alive once their heart starts?

Now, I'm not arguing a certain position here, so much as just raising some questions. If I shot you, I will likely be charged with attempted murder. If I shot you and your heart stops, I will likely be charged with murder. If the heartbeat determines death, should it also not determine life?

As for rape and incest, I don't know where I saw it, but recall reading that rape and incest abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions...so while it is an issue to some, it's more of a straw man when it comes to the abortion argument.

Personally I think adoption should be an option for all pregnant women who don't think they want their baby but sadly, in nearly all cases, it's rarely encouraged. I recall reading about the adoption statistics for Planned Parenthood and they are, almost literally, nonexistent...almost every woman that walks into Planned Parenthood pregnant looking for her options ends up aborting her child/fetus/cell/embryo.

Anyways, I do think there is a cause for concern when you factor in the aspect of moral decay. What has a society come to when it doesn't protect it's most vulnerable, the young and the old? The irony in all of this is how people, mainly the left, champion the right for women to choose but fail to realize that in doing so the woman is giving up her most sacred possession, her womb. As is pointed out in this video, is there any other person on earth that should be more safe than a child in their mother's womb? It's like there has been such a severe push for women to assert their rights that they are almost leaving behind the characteristics that make them a woman to begin with. Just food for thought.

Anyways, this video was sent to me recently and is rather great. This isn't your standard abortion hit piece but it does make you think about where you stand and your choice about a number of things...

Regards

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Two things you forgot to mention:

1. NSFW
2. It's a jungle down there

Under my tutelage, you will grow from boys to men. From men into gladiators. And from gladiators into SWANSONS.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

The formatting was the same as who I responded to, I was just pointing out the other side to the argument. And it has everything to do with whether or not the fetus is human before a certain point, since science indicates that the fetus is, by definition, alive. Viable in what sense? Viable outside the womb? Is a baby who needs life support to stay alive viable outside the womb? Does it mean technically premature babies who can't make it on their own aren't alive? Is it viable if the parents don't feed it? Viable is a relative term. As I've said before, the fetus is growing, taking in nutrients, digesting them, using oxygen, etc. It's absolutely viable as a life form feeding off of the placenta similarly as parasite is a viable life form. The "clump of cells" are alive. They're not dead. That's a scientic fact - there's no debating that. Now the quesiton of whether those cells are human and have human rights? That's the debate, not whether the cells themselves are alive, which they are. I think you and I are just using different definitions for "alive." Scientifically, the fetus is a life form. However, whether that life form is human or not is up for debate, so in that sense the fetus isn't "alive" in the same sense a human is alive.

In reply to ginNtonic
4/27/12
ginNtonic:

Pro death.

Pro abortion, pro war, pro suicide, pro assisted suicide, pro death penalty, pro whatever makes the line at Starbucks shorter

I'm pro life and this is fantastic. +1

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro life.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro choice is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on society.

Whereas pro life is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the choice of the individual and how they conduct there private/ household lives.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro life should not be legislated.

I completely respect everyone in here's views and support of pro-choice.

However, there is one snag which I find socially disturbing, this is the best rhetoric I can use to explain it.

Pro-life is not an imposing view, it merely is an allowance, or a negative liberty (gov't can't impose) on a person's right to life.

Whereas pro-choice is the opposite, it is the imposition of legislation on the right of the individual and gives someone the right to take a child's life in their own hands when they fully are aware that sex will possibly lead to pregnancy.

Both are respective opinions I think, but pro-choice should not be legislated.

You see where I'm going with this? It's not that I'm even that pro-life, which I'm not, I'm just trying to point out that this argument falls COMPLETELY on someone's opinion of whether the fetus is human and I'm playing devil's advocate with you.

If the fetus isn't human --> government is taking liberty away from the woman.

If the fetus is human --> government is allowing a woman to kill the human.

This is why libertarians are divided on the issue. If the fetus has a right to liberty and life, you're staunchly pro-life. It's EXTREMELY socially disturbing then that somone would advocate the legality of murduring. If the fetus isn't a human, you're staunchy pro-choice. Perspective is everything.

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

The formatting was the same as who I responded to, I was just pointing out the other side to the argument. And it has everything to do with whether or not the fetus is human before a certain point, since science indicates that the fetus is, by definition, alive. Viable in what sense? Viable outside the womb? Is a baby who needs life support to stay alive viable outside the womb? Does it mean technically premature babies who can't make it on their own aren't alive? Is it viable if the parents don't feed it? Viable is a relative term. As I've said before, the fetus is growing, taking in nutrients, digesting them, using oxygen, etc. It's absolutely viable as a life form feeding off of the placenta similarly as parasite is a viable life form. The "clump of cells" are alive. They're not dead. That's a scientic fact - there's no debating that. Now the quesiton of whether those cells are human and have human rights? That's the debate, not whether the cells themselves are alive, which they are. I think you and I are just using different definitions for "alive." Scientifically, the fetus is a life form. However, whether that life form is human or not is up for debate, so in that sense the fetus isn't "alive" in the same sense a human is alive.

The only reason that they are alive is because they are in the womb. A baby outside on life support has the possibility of life. If you remove the cells, they do not have a chance of growing, no matter how incubated. That is viable, not only being sustainable, but it is past a point where it is able to grow. Even though premature births do sometimes die, even on life support, the opportunity if you will, of their success in surviving is possible. It is not when they are still in the first trimester. That is my point.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

The only reason that they are alive is because they are in the womb. A baby outside on life support has the possibility of life. If you remove the cells, they do not have a chance of growing, no matter how incubated. That is viable, not only being sustainable, but it is past a point where it is able to grow. Even though premature births do sometimes die, even on life support, the opportunity if you will, of their success in surviving is possible. It is not when they are still in the first trimester. That is my point.

I agree. I'm merely pointing out that "alive" isn't a good word for pro-choice advocates to use since by definition since the fetus isn't inanimate and isn't dead, it's alive. I think the right phrasing is as you said, "viable" or maybe "formed human" or something.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

I'm very confused by your formatting choice. But, this argument has nothing to do a fetus is or is not a baby before a certain point. I do not advocate abortion after I believe 2nd trimester (or 1st), as it is a viable life form. I find it strange for someone to consider it "alive" before that point when science indicates it is not self sustaining or viable, hence not alive.

Should we be able to 'abort' cancer patients or diabetics, since they aren't self-sustaining and use machines and/or medicine to stay alive?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/27/12

I'm pro life, but fetus consumption cured my paralysis.

In reply to Flake
4/27/12
Flake:
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Two things you forgot to mention:

1. NSFW
2. It's a jungle down there

It's an abortion video, no need for NSFW.

This is what I forgot to mention:

1. I feel sorry for pussy eating guys.

haha

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

Yeah, I think by any definition of the law, they are alive. At any rate, that doesn't typically apply to abortion cases, but if that was a consideration, where does it stop? Birth defects? Missing limbs? Down syndrome? Genetic predispositions for incurable diseases?

The ultimate question is how do you know what quality of life a person can have when they are just a fetus...or ever, for that matter? Wilma Rudolph was diagnosed with Poliomyelitis as a child and was told by doctors that she would have to wear leg braces the rest of her life. Well, she didn't have any on when she won 3 gold medals at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. Catch my drift?

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Here's the video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=db9_1335502312

Watch it if you have the courage.

Gross. The lady needs a bush-whacker.
Also in the case of the video that fetus is at least 6 months along; nobody here advocates 3rd trimester abortions unless absolutely necessary.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

Dude... a fetus is the first stage of a human being, and hopefully if it lives long enough to reproduce, it does so then. I never said a fetus was its own species. And that's fine if you want to argue it's not conscious. That was my point - arguing things like consciousness are appropriate, but the "it's not alive" statement isn't.

4/27/12

Well sure, in absolute terms, all lives are equal (plants, humans, etc.) in the sense that if we're thrown into space, the universe won't make the distinction between a human and a plant. He'll kill us both.

However, if we apply that reasoning to everyday's life, then one shouldn't have a problem with eating fellow humans or even a human fetus. I mean, if we discover that some of our body parts are tasty, why not have a slaugherhouse for humans?

Also, I'll be able to kill people out in the street for no reason and I won't be thrown in jail. I mean, if I can walk on an ant & kill it, why not run over humans & kill them?

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Angus Macgyver:

Plants move. Animals move. Why don't you feel the same about killing them?

Retarded comment. He's stating the fact that it moved to argue that it's a human, not an organism. Following your statement to its conclusion would entail calling someone a hypocrite if they have a problem with murder in general, since hey, plants and animals move too.

And I'm pro-life generally but not die-hard, but statements like those are just stupid regardless of what you think though.

Retarded response. plenty of non-human things move, movement is not a proof of "humanity".
The necessary condition for an organism to be considered "life" is the ability to sustain in ambient conditions.
Until the fetus is able to breathe air and digest sustenance, it is no different from a monster tumor.

(get ready to have your mind blown)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teratoma

You're an idiot. OP was aruing that since a human-looking object that came from a human womb moved and squirmed, reasoning would imply that it is human and isn't an inanimate and unconscious group of cells. He wasn't arguing that because something moves, it happens to be human. In fact, you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that was the argument he was trying to make since it's an absurd one. Nice straw man.

It is a scientific fact that a fetus is alive. It is taking in nutrients, it is taking in oxygen, it is digesting sustenance, it grows, etc. The debate is over whether it is a HUMAN life and has human rights. Even though it may just be "just a clump of cells," by definition a clump of cells are alive. You state this originally and then for some reason state that the fetus isn't alive because it can't survive out of the womb, that it's no different than a tumor. Well then humans aren't alive because we can't survive outside of Earth's atmosphere, we're "trapped" by our surroundings and since we can't survive without living off the Earth's resources and food, we're tumors as well.

Nobody argued it was inanimate in the first place. Live cells by definition are animate. But fetus, for the most part, is not conscious. Conscience comes from the brain activity, and the brain activity in fetus does not begin until about week 25 - shortly before the 3rd trimester.
It's not fucking digesting sustenance, it is absorbing nutrients from the blood of the mother. It's a parasite. A vampire.

There are several scientific definition of what is considered life, but at the core of them all are sustenance, reproduction, and adaptability to the environment. A fetus is able to neither sustain itself, nor survive in ambient conditions.

Yeah, we are tumors on the earth, and when the earth decides to abort, there's nothing we can do. Moreover, Mars and Venus aren't sitting there and debating if Earth has the right to erupt a volcano and kill us.

Dude... a fetus is the first stage of a human being, and hopefully if it lives long enough to reproduce, it does so then. I never said a fetus was its own species. And that's fine if you want to argue it's not conscious. That was my point - arguing things like consciousness are appropriate, but the "it's not alive" statement isn't.

Sperm is the first stage of fetus. Stop killing thousands of children with your masturbation.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:

Sperm is the first stage of fetus. Stop killing thousands of children with your masturbation.

No, a sperm does not have all of the DNA/chromosomes of a human. Sperm isn't alive anyway. It doesn't grow and is reabsorbed by the body if it isn't used.

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:
streetwannabe:

You also need to determine quality of life (a whole other subject). But if someone's heart is beating, but brain dead forever and can't eat, move, talk, blink, etc, are they alive? Would you rather exist this way? Or be "unplugged"? I would prefer the latter myself.

Yeah, I think by any definition of the law, they are alive. At any rate, that doesn't typically apply to abortion cases, but if that was a consideration, where does it stop? Birth defects? Missing limbs? Down syndrome? Genetic predispositions for incurable diseases?

The ultimate question is how do you know what quality of life a person can have when they are just a fetus...or ever, for that matter? Wilma Rudolph was diagnosed with Poliomyelitis as a child and was told by doctors that she would have to wear leg braces the rest of her life. Well, she didn't have any on when she won 3 gold medals at the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome. Catch my drift?

Regards

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/27/12

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/27/12
Nobama88:

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

Haha, I like this. But it is just an academic discussion exploring different aspects of the two camps. I don't plan on gaining anything from this except hearing well structured debates from both sides and analyzing their critiques and premises of their platform.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/27/12
Nobama88:

Fuck talking about abortion. R v Wade won't be overturned ever. Unless there is legislation that will start legalizing late term abortions, I am just not going to talk about it. It is a lose lose for anyone involved in that conversation. We will all figure out who was right or wrong when we are dead.

In the meantime, we should really be just focusing on the economy.

THIS, abortion is a distraction issue IMO. While the electorate is split 50-50 arguing pro-life(best branding name ever) vs pro-choice the politicians rape our freedoms and bank accounts.

I always avoid abortion debates like the plague and try my hardest to not even mention anything about it around co workers. There are zealots on both sides and people get legit upset if your on the other side.

Now back to the NFL draft

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:

Well sure, in absolute terms, all lives are equal (plants, humans, etc.) in the sense that if we're thrown into space, the universe won't make the distinction between a human and a plant. He'll kill us both.

However, if we apply that reasoning to everyday's life, then one shouldn't have a problem with eating fellow humans or even a human fetus. I mean, if we discover that some of our body parts are tasty, why not have a slaugherhouse for humans?

Also, I'll be able to kill people out in the street for no reason and I won't be thrown in jail. I mean, if I can walk on an ant & kill it, why not run over humans & kill them?

Anyone to adress this?

In reply to Abdel
4/27/12
Abdel:
Abdel:

Well sure, in absolute terms, all lives are equal (plants, humans, etc.) in the sense that if we're thrown into space, the universe won't make the distinction between a human and a plant. He'll kill us both.

However, if we apply that reasoning to everyday's life, then one shouldn't have a problem with eating fellow humans or even a human fetus. I mean, if we discover that some of our body parts are tasty, why not have a slaugherhouse for humans?

Also, I'll be able to kill people out in the street for no reason and I won't be thrown in jail. I mean, if I can walk on an ant & kill it, why not run over humans & kill them?

Anyone to adress this?

Murder and Executions are options on the table. Don't get in my way.

How's that, cupcake?

Get busy living

In reply to UFOinsider
4/27/12
UFOinsider:
Abdel:
Abdel:

Well sure, in absolute terms, all lives are equal (plants, humans, etc.) in the sense that if we're thrown into space, the universe won't make the distinction between a human and a plant. He'll kill us both.

However, if we apply that reasoning to everyday's life, then one shouldn't have a problem with eating fellow humans or even a human fetus. I mean, if we discover that some of our body parts are tasty, why not have a slaugherhouse for humans?

Also, I'll be able to kill people out in the street for no reason and I won't be thrown in jail. I mean, if I can walk on an ant & kill it, why not run over humans & kill them?

Anyone to adress this?

Murder and Executions are options on the table. Don't get in my way.

How's that, cupcake?

I was told that russian ribs are tasty.

You're on my list man

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:

Sperm is the first stage of fetus. Stop killing thousands of children with your masturbation.

No, a sperm does not have all of the DNA/chromosomes of a human. Sperm isn't alive anyway. It doesn't grow and is reabsorbed by the body if it isn't used.

Fetus doesnt have all of the capabilities of a human, and retards don't have all of the DNA/chromosomes either (or have too many), your point is?

How is your sperm not alive? It moves, doesn't it? It can even survive outside of the body for a while.
And if it gets reabsorbed, then you especially don't need to jack off, your balls aren't gonna burst or anything, and you are just killing thousands of would-be mini-bulge_brackets, you wanker!

More is good, all is better

4/27/12

o wait, if I'm pro choice, this means that I'm allowed not to give tips.

Who cares if the barman/maid isn't paid enough. He/she can starve to death, who gives a shit.

In reply to streetwannabe
4/27/12
streetwannabe:

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

Roger that. My issue is I always advocate personal responsibility and legalized abortion just smacks in the face of that. I don't think people should be encouraged to live irresponsibly, especially by the government or government funded/subsidized programs, for that matter.

The problem with abortion is it's a slippery slope argument. If the government determines a certain point in time in which the child can legally be aborted then you will just have people that lie about when they got pregnant and doctors that will accept that at face value, because they don't actually care. If you outlaw all abortions except those of babies that were a result of incest or rape then you will just have people lying about how they got pregnant. I believe this is what's occurring in many cases were the mother suddenly becomes 'at risk' which allows some late term abortions to be conducted.

It certainly isn't an easy topic, though some like to pretend it is.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:
streetwannabe:

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

Roger that. My issue is I always advocate personal responsibility and legalized abortion just smacks in the face of that. I don't think people should be encouraged to live irresponsibly, especially by the government or government funded/subsidized programs, for that matter.

The problem with abortion is it's a slippery slope argument. If the government determines a certain point in time in which the child can legally be aborted then you will just have people that lie about when they got pregnant and doctors that will accept that at face value, because they don't actually care. If you outlaw all abortions except those of babies that were a result of incest or rape then you will just have people lying about how they got pregnant. I believe this is what's occurring in many cases were the mother suddenly becomes 'at risk' which allows some late term abortions to be conducted.

It certainly isn't an easy topic, though some like to pretend it is.

Regards

That's my thing with it. I find it truly disgusting that in today's day and age of cheap access to contraception and condoms, a woman who knows full well there's a risk, however small it is, of getting pregnant would fight for the right to essentially retroactively decide whether or not she wants the fetus to stick. This doesn't mean I'm for or against legalized abortion (especially in cases of rape, etc) but morally, I just find the whole concept completely reprehensible and completely devoid of personal responsibility.

4/27/12

I know that Nobama is being sarcastic, but traditionally, it is young, underage, low income individuals who have had unwanted pregnancies that result in abortion. Some of this may be due to the social taboo of teenage sex in America. I'm certainly not condoning sex among middle schoolers, however I'm simply saying that it does happen sometimes and these kids cannot be held as morally and responsibly accountable as their adult counterparts.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to Edmundo Braverman
4/27/12

Edmundo Braverman:
I think the entire fucking species should stop breeding, like, right fucking now.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:
streetwannabe:

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

Roger that. My issue is I always advocate personal responsibility and legalized abortion just smacks in the face of that. I don't think people should be encouraged to live irresponsibly, especially by the government or government funded/subsidized programs, for that matter.

The problem with abortion is it's a slippery slope argument. If the government determines a certain point in time in which the child can legally be aborted then you will just have people that lie about when they got pregnant and doctors that will accept that at face value, because they don't actually care. If you outlaw all abortions except those of babies that were a result of incest or rape then you will just have people lying about how they got pregnant. I believe this is what's occurring in many cases were the mother suddenly becomes 'at risk' which allows some late term abortions to be conducted.

It certainly isn't an easy topic, though some like to pretend it is.

Regards

So you think someone who doesn't have enough personal responsibility to use protection is responsible enough to raise a child?

Or that doctors go off patient's words when determining the date of conception?

More is good, all is better

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/27/12
bulge_bracket:
cphbravo96:
streetwannabe:

I agree to a point. But there is a large gap in quality of life ( which doesn't do any justice to what I'm trying to say ) in someone who is brain dead and someone with paralysis.

Also agree with your above topic. However it is your designated to someone to usually decide whether to pull the plug, the actual term "alive" or "life" are not adequate as language itself has shortcomings in fully describing certain elements of reality. They are very subjective terms that people throw around without actually considering what "life" is or is not.

Roger that. My issue is I always advocate personal responsibility and legalized abortion just smacks in the face of that. I don't think people should be encouraged to live irresponsibly, especially by the government or government funded/subsidized programs, for that matter.

The problem with abortion is it's a slippery slope argument. If the government determines a certain point in time in which the child can legally be aborted then you will just have people that lie about when they got pregnant and doctors that will accept that at face value, because they don't actually care. If you outlaw all abortions except those of babies that were a result of incest or rape then you will just have people lying about how they got pregnant. I believe this is what's occurring in many cases were the mother suddenly becomes 'at risk' which allows some late term abortions to be conducted.

It certainly isn't an easy topic, though some like to pretend it is.

Regards

That's my thing with it. I find it truly disgusting that in today's day and age of cheap access to contraception and condoms, a woman who knows full well there's a risk, however small it is, of getting pregnant would fight for the right to essentially retroactively decide whether or not she wants the fetus to stick. This doesn't mean I'm for or against legalized abortion (especially in cases of rape, etc) but morally, I just find the whole concept completely reprehensible and completely devoid of personal responsibility.

It is morally reprehensible to you that there are women who don't use protection, but you are ok when the guys don't?

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/27/12
Argonaut:

So you think someone who doesn't have enough personal responsibility to use protection is responsible enough to raise a child?

Not necessarily, but can't negative points be made about everyone, even those that are already parents? You don't think someone who speeds and rolls through stop signs is responsible enough to rear a child, do you? What about someone who had a few beers with dinner and then drove home?

The point is, if you don't hold people responsible for their actions, they don't learn and those around them do, but they learn the wrong lesson. If you allow people to simply correct a 'mistake', which is a common point of view among some abortion advocates, then there is no reason for them to use contraception in the next time, because there is little-to-no consequence for their action. Additionally, the people around those that have made the irresponsible decision of getting pregnant no longer have the benefit of seeing just how tough it is to raise a child while young or in school or out of wedlock. They just see a 'close call' and an easy fix.

In addition, removing the negative stigma from abortion just further encourages its use. So instead of being a last resort, it's the initial answer. If getting an abortion was seen as horrible, women would likely be encouraged, if only through shame, to carry the child to term and put the child up for adoption.

Society, and by extension the government, is just reinforcing the negative behavior.

Argonaut:

Or that doctors go off patient's words when determining the date of conception?

Not all doctors, but my point was that it almost has to be a yes or no situation...it can't be a "no, unless..." type situation, because it has been shown (if my memory serves me) that people are willing to lie about this type of stuff. I believe there was an investigation into an abortion clinic and it was discovered that some of the symptoms that were used to justify late term abortions were minor things like cramps and headaches, which nurses and/or doctors then claimed put the mothers life in danger. I can't find the initial source, but I think it was a TV show/documentary...maybe someone else has a link or can dig it up.

This is, in many ways, similar to the medical marijuana situation. You can't smoke it legally without a prescription so you have to go to a doctor. You might assume that one would need some sort of illness that necessitates the use of pot for alleviation of symptoms...as often mentioned with a number of serious illnesses like cancer or glaucoma, among others. Then you read that in a number of cases the justification for the prescriptions are things like anxiety and high blood pressure.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/27/12

This is what I was talking about, although I didn't find the video I was talking about. Just to be fair, they are allegations at this point.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art49020.asp

Also interesting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/91025...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/27/12

"Tired of the bullshit, a female Democrat shot back with a bill that would limit vasectomies in the state. The author of the No Child Left in Ballsack Act is Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from Riverdale. In a statement to the media, she said,

Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies. It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."
http://jezebel.com/5887293/smartass-state-lawmaker...

In reply to guerrillagrrl
4/27/12
guerrillagrrl:

"Tired of the bullshit, a female Democrat shot back with a bill that would limit vasectomies in the state. The author of the No Child Left in Ballsack Act is Yasmin Neal, a Democrat from Riverdale. In a statement to the media, she said,

Thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulation over vasectomies. It is patently unfair that men can avoid unwanted fatherhood by presuming that their judgment over such matters is more valid than the judgment of the General Assembly, while women's ability to decide is constantly up for debate throughout the United States."
http://jezebel.com/5887293/smartass-state-lawmaker...

This is why women shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a decision-making body.

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:

This is what I was talking about, although I didn't find the video I was talking about. Just to be fair, they are allegations at this point.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art49020.asp

the solution is, of course, to make them keep having babies and then drown them in a tub, in a fit of psychotic delusion, like Andrea Yates

cphbravo96:

Also interesting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/91025...

Regards

why is that interesting? There was no forgery, the counselor just chose not to confront the woman, but to let her manager handle it instead.

More is good, all is better

In reply to cphbravo96
4/27/12
cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

So you think someone who doesn't have enough personal responsibility to use protection is responsible enough to raise a child?

Not necessarily, but can't negative points be made about everyone, even those that are already parents? You don't think someone who speeds and rolls through stop signs is responsible enough to rear a child, do you? What about someone who had a few beers with dinner and then drove home?

No I don't. And if they are doing those things with the child in the car, the CPS needs to step in and take their kid away.

cphbravo96:

The point is, if you don't hold people responsible for their actions, they don't learn and those around them do, but they learn the wrong lesson.

Except that in this situation at least 2 people are responsible for the actions, and you are suggesting to absolve one party of the responsibility by shoving it onto the rest of us.
We live in a civilized society and I think it would be unacceptable for us to let orphans and children of idiot parents suffer hunger and illness; at the same time, why the fuck should my tax money be going to supporting some "baby, i'll pull out" douchebag's hungry children instead of to improving the quality of life for me and my future children?

cphbravo96:

If you allow people to simply correct a 'mistake', which is a common point of view among some abortion advocates, then there is no reason for them to use contraception in the next time, because there is little-to-no consequence for their action.

No offense, but that's pretty retarded. I would assume contraception is a lot easier and cheaper than an invasive medical procedure.

cphbravo96:

Additionally, the people around those that have made the irresponsible decision of getting pregnant no longer have the benefit of seeing just how tough it is to raise a child while young or in school or out of wedlock. They just see a 'close call' and an easy fix.

abortion has only been legalized in the 70's, how come in all the time before then people weren't reaping the "benefit" of seeing how tough it is to raise a kid?

cphbravo96:

In addition, removing the negative stigma from abortion just further encourages its use. So instead of being a last resort, it's the initial answer.

according to this logic, advancements in cancer treatments only encourage people to smoke, because who cares when you can always fix cancer?

cphbravo96:

If getting an abortion was seen as horrible, women would likely be encouraged, if only through shame, to carry the child to term and put the child up for adoption.

how many children have you adopted, and how many orphanages are you regularly donating to?

cphbravo96:

Not all doctors, but my point was that it almost has to be a yes or no situation...it can't be a "no, unless..." type situation, because it has been shown (if my memory serves me) that people are willing to lie about this type of stuff.

the doctors are able to check with an ultra sound and i'm sure a host of other symptoms.

cphbravo96:

I believe there was an investigation into an abortion clinic and it was discovered that some of the symptoms that were used to justify late term abortions were minor things like cramps and headaches, which nurses and/or doctors then claimed put the mothers life in danger. I can't find the initial source, but I think it was a TV show/documentary...maybe someone else has a link or can dig it up.

are you talking about this dude?: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-c...

cphbravo96:

This is, in many ways, similar to the medical marijuana situation. You can't smoke it legally without a prescription so you have to go to a doctor. You might assume that one would need some sort of illness that necessitates the use of pot for alleviation of symptoms...as often mentioned with a number of serious illnesses like cancer or glaucoma, among others. Then you read that in a number of cases the justification for the prescriptions are things like anxiety and high blood pressure.

so you think that a person suffering from anxiety that does not respond to more conventional treatments should just fuck him/herself?
I'm not sure i understand your point.

More is good, all is better

In reply to Argonaut
4/28/12
Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

Not necessarily, but can't negative points be made about everyone, even those that are already parents? You don't think someone who speeds and rolls through stop signs is responsible enough to rear a child, do you? What about someone who had a few beers with dinner and then drove home?

No I don't. And if they are doing those things with the child in the car, the CPS needs to step in and take their kid away.

Well people do these things every single day and we've managed to have a half decent society. I'm not condoning the behavior, just saying that one irresponsible act doesn't absolve a person of all future responsibility. Just because someone has done something dumb in the past doesn't mean they couldn't be a good parent in the future.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

The point is, if you don't hold people responsible for their actions, they don't learn and those around them do, but they learn the wrong lesson.

Except that in this situation at least 2 people are responsible for the actions, and you are suggesting to absolve one party of the responsibility by shoving it onto the rest of us. We live in a civilized society and I think it would be unacceptable for us to let orphans and children of idiot parents suffer hunger and illness; at the same time, why the fuck should my tax money be going to supporting some "baby, i'll pull out" douchebag's hungry children instead of to improving the quality of life for me and my future children?

I think both the mother and father should be responsible for the child. Your tax money should go to support these types of people because you want to keep living in a civilized society.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

If you allow people to simply correct a 'mistake', which is a common point of view among some abortion advocates, then there is no reason for them to use contraception in the next time, because there is little-to-no consequence for their action.

No offense, but that's pretty retarded. I would assume contraception is a lot easier and cheaper than an invasive medical procedure.

First and foremost, I love when people attempt to provide context for their next sentence like, "I'm not racist, I just hate black people." If anyone ever starts a sentence by telling you what they aren't, they are going to immediately follow it up with an opinion that contradicts their initial statement. Case in point, "No offense...but I'm going to say something offensive."

Contraception is a lot easier and cheaper to get, but it also requires the person to put their brain into gear, to think ahead and plan. It's also somewhat inconvenient and many will complain that it dulls the sensation of intercourse, etc. Bottom line is, the odds of not getting someone pregnant are significantly greater than getting someone pregnant, so people will take that risk. When you factor in that abortions are fairly easy to get, then there is practically no incentive to use the contraception. Most guys have been there before...when you are in the heat of the moment, you will do and/or say anything to get it in.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

Additionally, the people around those that have made the irresponsible decision of getting pregnant no longer have the benefit of seeing just how tough it is to raise a child while young or in school or out of wedlock. They just see a 'close call' and an easy fix.

abortion has only been legalized in the 70's, how come in all the time before then people weren't reaping the "benefit" of seeing how tough it is to raise a kid?

How would you say they weren't reaping the benefit? Teen pregnancies were a bit higher in the 50s and 60s than they are now, but keep in mind that it wasn't uncommon for a girl to get married at 18. So while the absolute number is higher, the impact of 'teen pregnancy' was much lower, because these mothers were typically married and running a household with their baby's daddy...as opposed to now, where the mother spends most of the time trying to figure out who the baby's daddy is. Girls used to see older girls graduate high school and get married and have a baby and they would emulate it. Why wouldn't this principle hold true now? It's the old, let them touch the stove just once, they will learn their lesson trick. At any rate, the real issue with this particular topic is the moral decay in society which is illustrated by the number of pregnancies that occur out of wedlock.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

In addition, removing the negative stigma from abortion just further encourages its use. So instead of being a last resort, it's the initial answer.

according to this logic, advancements in cancer treatments only encourage people to smoke, because who cares when you can always fix cancer?

Yeah, possibly, though one could argue that an abortion is a little more certain than lengthy, painful, expensive cancer treatments. If you could chug a sports drink the morning after sex and it cured every STD, would most guys were a condom? Probably not. How many people do you think would go skydiving if parachutes didn't exist?

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

If getting an abortion was seen as horrible, women would likely be encouraged, if only through shame, to carry the child to term and put the child up for adoption.

how many children have you adopted, and how many orphanages are you regularly donating to?

I haven't adopted any kids, but my parents did foster several dozens kids when I was growing up and I do have 3 adopted brothers and an adopted sister. What does your foot taste like? For what it's worth, I've never had colon cancer or breast cancer or lymphoma or cystic fibrosis...but I donate money to all of those causes. I also donate money to animal shelters and have adopted dogs in the past.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

Not all doctors, but my point was that it almost has to be a yes or no situation...it can't be a "no, unless..." type situation, because it has been shown (if my memory serves me) that people are willing to lie about this type of stuff.

the doctors are able to check with an ultra sound and i'm sure a host of other symptoms.

The doctors are able to check what? What I'm saying is if you have loopholes, people will take advantage of them, even if that means lying or stretching the truth. Tax code, anyone?

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

I believe there was an investigation into an abortion clinic and it was discovered that some of the symptoms that were used to justify late term abortions were minor things like cramps and headaches, which nurses and/or doctors then claimed put the mothers life in danger. I can't find the initial source, but I think it was a TV show/documentary...maybe someone else has a link or can dig it up.

are you talking about this dude?: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-usa-c...

No, it wasn't that particular person. I actually believe it was Tiller, but the point remains, there are people that don't think there is anything wrong with abortion and they believe it's a women's right to choose. Some of those people are doctors and some appear (allegedly) willing to break the law.

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

This is, in many ways, similar to the medical marijuana situation. You can't smoke it legally without a prescription so you have to go to a doctor. You might assume that one would need some sort of illness that necessitates the use of pot for alleviation of symptoms...as often mentioned with a number of serious illnesses like cancer or glaucoma, among others. Then you read that in a number of cases the justification for the prescriptions are things like anxiety and high blood pressure.

so you think that a person suffering from anxiety that does not respond to more conventional treatments should just fuck him/herself?
I'm not sure i understand your point.

No, I'm not necessarily trying to be cruel and say, "too bad, so sad" I'm just pointing out that there are severe illnesses in which pot alleviates symptoms but the majority of medical marijuana users seem to be recreational users that just happen to have anxiety...which they cure with weed. I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm just saying it's a farce for these people to drag out a patient with bone cancer as the poster child for legalizing medical marijuana when in all actuality, the vast majority of users are just people that want an excuse to get high...legally.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to Argonaut
4/28/12
Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

This is what I was talking about, although I didn't find the video I was talking about. Just to be fair, they are allegations at this point.

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art49020.asp

the solution is, of course, to make them keep having babies and then drown them in a tub, in a fit of psychotic delusion, like Andrea Yates

Honestly, if you are willing to abort the baby anyways, you might as well let the mother go insane and drown the baby in the tub. At the end of the day you don't have to worry about the baby and you can put a twisted, deranged person behind bars.

Surely you see how 'depression' can simply be used as a reason, even if there isn't proof?

Argonaut:
cphbravo96:

Also interesting...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/91025...

Regards

why is that interesting? There was no forgery, the counselor just chose not to confront the woman, but to let her manager handle it instead.

It's interesting because the initial contact at the office appeared to steer her in the direction in which she would be able to get the abortion, even though the expecting mother expressed that she merely wanted to abort the baby because it was the wrong sex.

The article states: When the woman said she wanted an abortion because "it's a girl and I have a girl already, and I really want a boy", the counsellor told her that it was illegal to have a termination for that reason. However, when the would-be patient asked if they had to mention the reason she had stated, the counsellor said: "I mean, if you want to tell me something different, another reason why you don't want to continue with this pregnancy ... I can put that."

Clearly the worker was implying that they could ignore the stated reason for the abortion and choose one that was more appropriate and legal.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/28/12

Don't want to read this thread because I'm sure it sucks but...Abdel was never pro choice and he is full of shit.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

4/28/12

depends on the case for me... not gonna call myself pro-life or pro-choice, but I'm sick of whores using abortion clinics as their morning after pills

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

4/29/12
4/29/12
In reply to wolverine19x89
4/29/12
wolverine19x89:

depends on the case for me... not gonna call myself pro-life or pro-choice, but I'm sick of whores using abortion clinics as their morning after pills

this..every circumstance is different

4/29/12

For anyone who hasn't read Freakonomics - an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart, I want to eat your children, praise be to Allah!

In reply to caneman9
4/29/12
caneman9:

For anyone who hasn't read Freakonomics - an interesting video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw

I believe there have been quite a few refuting claims to this study (one even in which Levitt admits a fallacy to his conclusion), but I find this fascinating and actually think that this study is actually legitimate and for the most part correct.

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

4/29/12

two biggest pro choice arguments I hear and have a difficult time refuting:

- Girl is raped and impregnated. Should she have to carry that baby full term?
- Mother abuses drugs/alcohol and it is known that the baby will be born with severe mental / physical retardation and/or deformities as a result of this abuse. Should the child suffer the rest of its life because of the mothers actions?

^^ In both of those scenarios I do not understand how you can argue pro-life. That being said I am still on the fence.

Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, you are the sucker.

In reply to alphabravo89
4/29/12
bullbythehorns:

two biggest pro choice arguments I hear and have a difficult time refuting:

- Girl is raped and impregnated. Should she have to carry that baby full term?
- Mother abuses drugs/alcohol and it is known that the baby will be born with severe mental / physical retardation and/or deformities as a result of this abuse. Should the child suffer the rest of its life because of the mothers actions?

^^ In both of those scenarios I do not understand how you can argue pro-life. That being said I am still on the fence.

#1: morning pills (think it's up to 2 days)

#2: well, we might as well eliminate all the 'retards' on this planet. We cain't let them suffer.

4/29/12

those are pretty horrible points you made there, Abdel

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

4/29/12

@Abdel

#1 - Somehow I don't think after a woman was raped the first thing on her mind is "welp better hop down to my local safeway in the next 24 hours and get a Plan B" Probably in a pretty fragile state not to mention the pill is expensive if not subsidized in some states

#2 - By saying you would allow that baby to come to term your essentially punishing the child for the mothers actions. Your cool with that kid being in a vegetative state the rest of its life? Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, you are the sucker.

In reply to alphabravo89
4/29/12
bullbythehorns:

@Abdel
Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

And fairly easy to say from someone who wasn't aborted...

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/29/12
Nobama88:
bullbythehorns:

@Abdel
Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

And fairly easy to say from someone who wasn't aborted...

And fairly easy to say from someone who should have been aborted...

In reply to WestCoastDeveloper
4/29/12
Nobama88:
bullbythehorns:

@Abdel
Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

And fairly easy to say from someone who wasn't aborted...

This is why I can't take a definite stand. Nobody knows what either side is truly feeling, and you'd be pretty fucking stupid to act as if you did. It depends on the case, not everything has to be so fucking black and white.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to Cola Coca
4/29/12
Cola Coca:
Nobama88:
bullbythehorns:

@Abdel
Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

And fairly easy to say from someone who wasn't aborted...

And fairly easy to say from someone who should have been aborted...

Haha, who threw MS? this is too funny to be mad about!

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

In reply to wolverine19x89
4/29/12
wolverine19x89:

those are pretty horrible points you made there, Abdel

How are those points horrible?

If a girl gets rape, the first thing she has to do is:

chek for deseases then pop a pill. That's pretty standard in those cases.

To the subject about abortion if we know that the unborn person will be retarted, I only pushed his argument to its limits to test its validity and clearly, it is not valid.

In reply to Cola Coca
4/29/12
Cola Coca:
Nobama88:
bullbythehorns:

@Abdel
Fairly easy to say from someone who is likely 100% healthy.

And fairly easy to say from someone who wasn't aborted...

And fairly easy to say from someone who should have been aborted...

The funny/crazy thing is that I'm not even suposed to be alive. My mom told me she was going to abort but for a concours of circumstances, she kept me.

Imagine WSO without Abdel. It would be like heaven but without those 72 virgins.

In reply to Abdel
4/29/12
Abdel:
wolverine19x89:

those are pretty horrible points you made there, Abdel

How are those points horrible?

If a girl gets rape, the first thing she has to do is:

chek for deseases then pop a pill. That's pretty standard in those cases.

To the subject about abortion if we know that the unborn person will be retarted, I only pushed his argument to its limits to test its validity and clearly, it is not valid.

except sometimes, getting violently penetrated against your will by another human being that you've never met may make you very distraught? leaving you unable to think clearly?

people who think this shit is so black and white are fucking annoying. not everybody thinks the way that you do while you're sitting in your computer chair staring at a screen NOT having just been raped.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to wolverine19x89
4/29/12
wolverine19x89:
Abdel:
wolverine19x89:

those are pretty horrible points you made there, Abdel

How are those points horrible?

If a girl gets rape, the first thing she has to do is:

chek for deseases then pop a pill. That's pretty standard in those cases.

To the subject about abortion if we know that the unborn person will be retarted, I only pushed his argument to its limits to test its validity and clearly, it is not valid.

except sometimes, getting violently penetrated against your will by another human being that you've never met may make you very distraught? leaving you unable to think clearly?

people who think this shit is so black and white are fucking annoying. not everybody thinks the way that you do while you're sitting in your computer chair staring at a screen NOT having just been raped.

She has 72 hours to take the pill.

4/29/12

black and white. just like that.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to wolverine19x89
4/30/12
wolverine19x89:

black and white. just like that.

I know what you're saying but my point is, that girl will carry ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

4/30/12

Just because a "person" has a right to life does not mean that he/she has the right to use another's body in order to survive. Nuff said.

Pro-Choice.

WallStreetOasis Contributing Author - Intern

Check out my Blog

Check out my Twitter

In reply to Goldf1nger
4/30/12
JBJ-89:

Just because a "person" has a right to life does not mean that he/she has the right to use another's body in order to survive. Nuff said.

Pro-Choice.

She did NOT choose to be in that girl's body. That girl DECIDED to invite/force her in her body knowing that she couldn't survive by herself.

It is as if I force you into my place, break every bone in your body so you cain't move around and survive on your own and then tell you:

''hey man, this is MY place, so I can do whatever I want. You have a right to your life but not a right to be here. Therefore, I'm killing you. ''

In reply to Abdel
4/30/12
Abdel:
JBJ-89:

Just because a "person" has a right to life does not mean that he/she has the right to use another's body in order to survive. Nuff said.

Pro-Choice.

She did NOT choose to be in that girl's body. That girl DECIDED to invite/force her in her body knowing that she couldn't survive by herself.

It is as if I force you into my place, break every bone in your body so you cain't move around and survive on your own and then tell you:

''hey man, this is MY place, so I can do whatever I want. You have a right to your life but not a right to be here. Therefore, I'm killing you. ''

that is a beautiful analogy

In reply to Abdel
4/30/12
Abdel:
JBJ-89:

Just because a "person" has a right to life does not mean that he/she has the right to use another's body in order to survive. Nuff said.

Pro-Choice.

She did NOT choose to be in that girl's body. That girl DECIDED to invite/force her in her body knowing that she couldn't survive by herself.

It is as if I force you into my place, break every bone in your body so you cain't move around and survive on your own and then tell you:

''hey man, this is MY place, so I can do whatever I want. You have a right to your life but not a right to be here. Therefore, I'm killing you. ''

First, let me say that I do not think it's morally "ok" to have an abortion if the mother engaged in sex voluntarily with the INTENTION of getting pregnant. In this case your analogy is correct.

However, if the mother engaged in sex voluntarily, or involuntarily for that matter, WITHOUT the intention of getting pregnant you can't possibly claim that she invited/forced the person inside her body. Thus, the mother did NOT grant the person a right to use her body in order to survive, and therefore having an abortion is morally permissible.

Furthermore, your assuming that every girl that gets pregnant "DECIDED" to get pregnant. When in fact a study show that 49% of all pregnancies in 2006 were unintended.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPr...

WallStreetOasis Contributing Author - Intern

Check out my Blog

Check out my Twitter

In reply to Abdel
4/30/12
Abdel:
wolverine19x89:
Abdel:
wolverine19x89:

those are pretty horrible points you made there, Abdel

How are those points horrible?

If a girl gets rape, the first thing she has to do is:

chek for deseases then pop a pill. That's pretty standard in those cases.

To the subject about abortion if we know that the unborn person will be retarted, I only pushed his argument to its limits to test its validity and clearly, it is not valid.

except sometimes, getting violently penetrated against your will by another human being that you've never met may make you very distraught? leaving you unable to think clearly?

people who think this shit is so black and white are fucking annoying. not everybody thinks the way that you do while you're sitting in your computer chair staring at a screen NOT having just been raped.

She has 72 hours to take the pill.

Hypothetical: lets say the girl that gets raped is homeless and can barely feed herself. Where does she get $80 to pay for the pill? What if she doesn't have access to planned parenthood? Or what if the pill doesn't work and the girl who was now raped and tried to stop pregnancy is carrying the child of a criminal that forcefully impregnated her?

Like I said before I am on the fence because I can see both sides, but in the case of rape, how the hell can you argue for pro-life.

Here's the thing. If you can't spot the sucker in the first half hour at the table, you are the sucker.

4/30/12

threads like this make me appreciate prestige threads a lot more

4/30/12

Pro-life. I would honestly never vote for a politician who is "pro-choice"- which, by the way, is the most PC term for killing babies out there.

That said, I think abortion in cases of rape is ok. The psychological harm that giving birth to a child of a man who assaulted you is probably insanely high. Furthermore, the child would probably HAVE to be set up for adoption, since he/she would be a psychological burden on the mother- probably being unintentionally abused/resented. Abortion in cases of incest is retarded. It was either consensual sex- so why force the child to die? Or rape- which I just said abortion should be allowed.

Another case where I think that abortion is ok, but is more controversial, is in cases where the child has a terrible, painful, disease that would result in a VERY SHORT LIFE anyway. I would posit, Tay-Sachs, SCID, and Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome as possible contenders. While I put this forth, I also would caution it's implementation. Because on the list of "painful, life-shortening, diseases" that some abortion advocates list as ones that should be allowable for partial-birth abortions (which are illegal in most cases) there is one that I have.

Personally, as a Cystic Fibrosis afflicted child adopted from a 19 year-old unmarried waitress, I feel there were a lot of opportunities for abortionists to get the better of me. That said, I still LOVE my life and thank God every day that I have the opportunity to live. There are times that are difficult, but even if I don't get my transplant and die in the next few years I would still rather have lived than not at all.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

4/30/12
Abdel:

I just watched an abortion video.

Within 2 min, I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.

I understand the pro-choice argument, but thing is, you're carrying ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

I just wanted to quote the original post so everyone knows Abdel was full of shit when he said this. No, he didn't watch a video and no, he was never pro-choice. It would be particularly weird if he actually was pro choice yet his mother had told him he was almost aborted.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

In reply to duffmt6
4/30/12
duffmt6:
Abdel:

I just watched an abortion video.

Within 2 min, I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.

I understand the pro-choice argument, but thing is, you're carrying ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

I just wanted to quote the original post so everyone knows Abdel was full of shit when he said this. No, he didn't watch a video and no, he was never pro-choice. It would be particularly weird if he actually was pro choice yet his mother had told him he was almost aborted.

Have you watched the video? It's brutal. I posted the link in page 2 I think.

In regards to my mother almost aborting, thing never told torn me. It actually was the opposite, I use to tell she should have aborted so I wouldn't have to wake up everyday in this world full of keynesians.

In reply to Goldf1nger
4/30/12
JBJ-89:
Abdel:
JBJ-89:

Just because a "person" has a right to life does not mean that he/she has the right to use another's body in order to survive. Nuff said.

Pro-Choice.

She did NOT choose to be in that girl's body. That girl DECIDED to invite/force her in her body knowing that she couldn't survive by herself.

It is as if I force you into my place, break every bone in your body so you cain't move around and survive on your own and then tell you:

''hey man, this is MY place, so I can do whatever I want. You have a right to your life but not a right to be here. Therefore, I'm killing you. ''

First, let me say that I do not think it's morally "ok" to have an abortion if the mother engaged in sex voluntarily with the INTENTION of getting pregnant. In this case your analogy is correct.

However, if the mother engaged in sex voluntarily, or involuntarily for that matter, WITHOUT the intention of getting pregnant you can't possibly claim that she invited/forced the person inside her body. Thus, the mother did NOT grant the person a right to use her body in order to survive, and therefore having an abortion is morally permissible.

Furthermore, your assuming that every girl that gets pregnant "DECIDED" to get pregnant. When in fact a study show that 49% of all pregnancies in 2006 were unintended.
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPr...

I'm sorry but the respondants to that study are nothing more than liars (o the surprise). I mean what is the basic goal of having sex neways? To have kids. So whenever a girl has a relation with someone = could get pregnant = need to take precautions.

In reply to Abdel
4/30/12
Abdel:
duffmt6:
Abdel:

I just watched an abortion video.

Within 2 min, I went from being pro-choice to being pro-life.

I understand the pro-choice argument, but thing is, you're carrying ANOTHER person and that person has rights.

I just wanted to quote the original post so everyone knows Abdel was full of shit when he said this. No, he didn't watch a video and no, he was never pro-choice. It would be particularly weird if he actually was pro choice yet his mother had told him he was almost aborted.

Have you watched the video? It's brutal. I posted the link in page 2 I think.

In regards to my mother almost aborting, thing never told torn me. It actually was the opposite, I use to tell she should have aborted so I wouldn't have to wake up everyday in this world full of keynesians.

I don't give a shit about the video, not even getting involved in this debate. I was simply pointing out that you were being deliberately manipulative in your original post (and have been throughout). You were never pro-choice, you just thought it made your argument more legitimate.

"For I am a sinner in the hands of an angry God. Bloody Mary full of vodka, blessed are you among cocktails. Pray for me now and at the hour of my death, which I hope is soon. Amen."

In reply to alphabravo89
4/30/12
bullbythehorns:

Hypothetical: lets say the girl that gets raped is homeless and can barely feed herself. Where does she get $80 to pay for the pill? What if she doesn't have access to planned parenthood? Or what if the pill doesn't work and the girl who was now raped and tried to stop pregnancy is carrying the child of a criminal that forcefully impregnated her?

Like I said before I am on the fence because I can see both sides, but in the case of rape, how the hell can you argue for pro-life.

She can go to the police where they'll refer her to a private charity or something.

4/30/12

I think too many are focusing on the rape hypothetical. Can't almost all of us agree that regardless of the morality, that LEGALLY, there should be an exception for rape?? That's why I think disussing rape is getting off-topic because I see that as almost a given. We should be discussing the case that occurs 99% of the time, when a woman has sex knowing that there is a risk of pregnancy (however small), gets knocked up, and then faces the choice whether to abort or not.

4/30/12

Abdel..you suck

I eat success for breakfast...with skim milk

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/30/12
bulge_bracket:

I think too many are focusing on the rape hypothetical. Can't almost all of us agree that regardless of the morality, that LEGALLY, there should be an exception for rape?? That's why I think disussing rape is getting off-topic because I see that as almost a given. We should be discussing the case that occurs 99% of the time, when a woman has sex knowing that there is a risk of pregnancy (however small), gets knocked up, and then faces the choice whether to abort or not.

yeah, you would think that the rape aspect would be a given with any half-intelligent human being... apparently not with abdel

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

4/30/12

Lol you act like rape is clear-cut as well.

How will a legal abortion be determined then? A successfully prosecuted rape? What if he denies it and claims right to being the active father? What if she says he raped her but he denies it and demands the fetus be carried to term?
By the time a rape would be proven as such the kid will be in 1st grade.

4/30/12

If you are not going to be around with a knocked up single mom in raising the kid, you have zero say in whether she should get an abortion or not.

Plus abortion leads to lower crime rates.

Life occurs with life experience. How can a fetus have life experience? Stop trying to project your own feelings and values on an unborn fetus.

In reply to alphabravo89
4/30/12
bullbythehorns:

...Or what if the pill doesn't work and the girl who was now raped and tried to stop pregnancy is carrying the child of a criminal that forcefully impregnated her?...

Nothing like becoming a murdered to erase the memory of a rapist.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

4/30/12

Also the morning after pill only works if conception has not already occurred...

In reply to wolverine19x89
4/30/12
wolverine19x89:
bulge_bracket:

I think too many are focusing on the rape hypothetical. Can't almost all of us agree that regardless of the morality, that LEGALLY, there should be an exception for rape?? That's why I think disussing rape is getting off-topic because I see that as almost a given. We should be discussing the case that occurs 99% of the time, when a woman has sex knowing that there is a risk of pregnancy (however small), gets knocked up, and then faces the choice whether to abort or not.

yeah, you would think that the rape aspect would be a given with any half-intelligent human being... apparently not with abdel

I don't see an argument = invalid statement.

In reply to guerrillagrrl
4/30/12
guerrillagrrl:

Lol you act like rape is clear-cut as well.

How will a legal abortion be determined then? A successfully prosecuted rape? What if he denies it and claims right to being the active father? What if she says he raped her but he denies it and demands the fetus be carried to term?
By the time a rape would be proven as such the kid will be in 1st grade.

Exactly. This is why I stated that it would essentially have to be no abortions at all or yes to everything. If there are exceptions people will circumvent the situation...as alleged in the link I provided a few pages ago.

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to IRSPB
4/30/12
IRSPB:

...Plus abortion leads to lower crime rates...

I believe some people have called that claim into question...so it's not that cut and dry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legaliz...

Regards

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

In reply to cphbravo96
4/30/12
cphbravo96:
guerrillagrrl:

Lol you act like rape is clear-cut as well.

How will a legal abortion be determined then? A successfully prosecuted rape? What if he denies it and claims right to being the active father? What if she says he raped her but he denies it and demands the fetus be carried to term?
By the time a rape would be proven as such the kid will be in 1st grade.

Exactly. This is why I stated that it would essentially have to be no abortions at all or yes to everything. If there are exceptions people will circumvent the situation...as alleged in the link I provided a few pages ago.

Regards

Yes but you seem to be arguing for pro-life. (Just skimmed, sorry)
I am firmly pro-choice.

4/30/12

Obviously people will try to circumvent the situation. But the "W: He raped me M: No I didn't I want the kid" situation is such a straw man argument it is amazing. It's akin to Abdel's "The ho has 72 hours to grab Plan B after being raped" argument.

Falsely accusing a man of rape is a jail-able offense and combined with murder that's a hefty price to pay for convenience IMHO. Most men don't want to give their wife 50% in a divorce, that doesn't mean men are killing their exes or stealing their entire fortune and moving to other countries left and right. Sure it has probably happened, but I feel there are some mitigating factors there.

Reality hits you hard, bro...

In reply to cphbravo96
4/30/12
cphbravo96:
bullbythehorns:

...Or what if the pill doesn't work and the girl who was now raped and tried to stop pregnancy is carrying the child of a criminal that forcefully impregnated her?...

Nothing like becoming a murdered to erase the memory of a rapist.

Regards

wow, that's not a biased way of putting it at all.

If your dreams don't scare you, then they are not big enough.

"There are two types of people in this world: People who say they pee in the shower, and dirty fucking liars."-Louis C.K.

In reply to bulge_bracket
4/30/12
bulge_bracket:

I think too many are focusing on the rape hypothetical. Can't almost all of us agree that regardless of the morality, that LEGALLY, there should be an exception for rape?? That's why I think disussing rape is getting off-topic because I see that as almost a given. We should be discussing the case that occurs 99% of the time, when a woman has sex knowing that there is a risk of pregnancy (however small), gets knocked up, and then faces the choice whether to abort or not.

The problem with this is that any girl can get pregnant through consensual sex and then scream rape when she finds out she is preggo.

Seriously, as a guy, you do not want abortion to be legal for only cases of rape and illegal for anything else. You will start to see a lot more charges of rape...

In reply to MMBinNC
4/30/12
MMBinNC:

Pro-life. I would honestly never vote for a politician who is "pro-choice"- which, by the way, is the most PC term for killing babies out there.

That said, I think abortion in cases of rape is ok. The psychological harm that giving birth to a child of a man who assaulted you is probably insanely high. Furthermore, the child would probably HAVE to be set up for adoption, since he/she would be a psychological burden on the mother- probably being unintentionally abused/resented. Abortion in cases of incest is retarded. It was either consensual sex- so why force the child to die? Or rape- which I just said abortion should be allowed.

Another case where I think that abortion is ok, but is more controversial, is in cases where the child has a terrible, painful, disease that would result in a VERY SHORT LIFE anyway. I would posit, Tay-Sachs, SCID, and Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome as possible contenders. While I put this forth, I also would caution it's implementation. Because on the list of "painful, life-shortening, diseases" that some abortion advocates list as ones that should be allowable for partial-birth abortions (which are illegal in most cases) there is one that I have.

Personally, as a Cystic Fibrosis afflicted child adopted from a 19 year-old unmarried waitress, I feel there were a lot of opportunities for abortionists to get the better of me. That said, I still LOVE my life and thank God every day that I have the opportunity to live. There are times that are difficult, but even if I don't get my transplant and die in the next few years I would still rather have lived than not at a