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)

4/27/12

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

I hate victims who respect their executioners

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

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
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

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

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)

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

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
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
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
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."

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

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.

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

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
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

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.

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
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.

4/27/12

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

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

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.

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
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

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
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
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

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

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

5/2/12
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.

Didn't the shakers try to do that? Didn't turn out too well for them.

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.

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.

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

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
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 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
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."

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

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

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.

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

4/27/12

i-pro-life...respect for life

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.

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

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

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."

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."

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

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
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
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.

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!

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.

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-choice. Only for first trimester abortions though.

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

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?!?!?!?

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."

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.

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
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...

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."

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.

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

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
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
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."

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.

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."

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.

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 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

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
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

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
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

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
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

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

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
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

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

5/1/12
cphbravo96:

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.

wtf? are you saying that people who drink and drive with their kid in the car are guilty of just one "irresponsible act"?
I think by the time someone gets to that point they are a fucking alcoholic and are definitely not fit to raise a child.

cphbravo96:

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.

Absolutely. At the same time I am not about to encourage them to breed. Which is what you are trying to do by attacking abortion.

cphbravo96:

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."

You are right. I am sorry. I misspoke. Let me rephase that: "That's pretty fucking retarded"

cphbravo96:

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.

again, the alternative you are suggesting is that people without enough forethought to use contraception be allowed - nay, FORCED - to raise a child.

cphbravo96:

It's also somewhat inconvenient and many will complain that it dulls the sensation of intercourse, etc.

Do women ever complain of that? I think that's usually a man thing. So there are at least some relationships when a woman is pressured to forego a safety measure in order to accomodate someone's desires.
Yet you feel that taking away her right to make a choice is a fair punishment for a choice she didn't make in the first place .

cphbravo96:

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.

Let's assume for a second that it is true for women. What stops guys from putting a condom on? Can't exactly force someone to get an abortion...

cphbravo96:

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.

So you are saying that guys lie and mislead. Yet women should be punished for falling a victim to fraud?
Are you trying to create a situation where it's impossible to have sex outside of marriage and cockblock your bros?

cphbravo96:

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.

Are you familiar with the term "shotgun wedding"? They weren't exactly marrying and THEN getting pregnant.
Are you suggesting that men today should be forced into marriage and subsequent splitting of assets just because they weren't careful when fooling around?

cphbravo96:

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?

Because it is not economically viable anymore?

cphbravo96:

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.

I don't care about policing someone's morality if it doesn't affect me, however the so-called "moral decay" is kinda funny, because just as many if not more pregnancies started out of wedlock before, they just didn't end there.
The girl's parents either forced the offending party into marriage within the first couple of months of pregnancy, or drove her out to mexico or flew her to europe to get an abortion.

cphbravo96:

Yeah, possibly, though one could argue that an abortion is a little more certain than lengthy, painful, expensive cancer treatments.

but also a lot more likely from unprotected sex than cancer is from smoking.

cphbravo96:

If you could chug a sports drink the morning after sex and it cured every STD, would most guys were a condom? Probably not.

does the sports drink also cure custody battles and child support?

cphbravo96:

How many people do you think would go skydiving if parachutes didn't exist?

The parachutes, aka abortions, did not exist for the longest time, yet that didn't prevent people from sky-diving. Your naive view of cause and effect is exhausting. Isn't "The Scarlet Letter" supposed to be required reading in high school?

cphbravo96:

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.

then you of all people should know how much the system chews them up and spits them.

cphbravo96:

What does your foot taste like?

You tell me

cphbravo96:

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.

good for you. keep donating. just don't expect ME to pay for the causes you consider important. I would like to put MY money towards things I find important.

cphbravo96:

The doctors are able to check what?

gestational age of a fetus

cphbravo96:

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?

Are you suggesting that everyone should sign their entire paycheck to the government? Going off your comparison of tax code with abortion.

cphbravo96:

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.

oh, so you seem to think that cancer is a real illness, and anxiety disorder isn't? Did you know that the alternative class of medication for anxiety is benzodiazepines, and they are not only more destructive to a patient's health and addictive, they also impair performance and reaction to a higher degree. So because you think that anxiety sufferers should not get to smoke marijuana, since it can be used as a recreational drug, you are in essence advocating that they be more fucked up and more unhealthy by sticking to the traditional treatment course?
BTW, vicodin is a narcotic pain pill, and people get it for "minor things" like getting teeth pulled or back discomfort after a minor car accident (along with flexeril/soma). And don't get me started on HC tussive cough syrup - people get it for something as minor as a little chest congestion. Someone like you should become a doctor and tell those pussies to suck it up instead, yeah?

cphbravo96:

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

even if that's the case, i would rather be getting revenue from them than paying to keep them in jail.

More is good, all is better

5/1/12
Argonaut:

wtf? are you saying that people who drink and drive with their kid in the car are guilty of just one "irresponsible act"?
I think by the time someone gets to that point they are a fucking alcoholic and are definitely not fit to raise a child.

Maybe some other people can weigh in on this, but I don't know many parents who haven't had a beer or glass of wine at dinner, at one point or another, and then drove home...maybe it was the office Christmas party. I'm not necessarily saying with kids in the car, but just in general. You technically aren't drunk and you aren't breaking the law, but some would say that it's irresponsible to operate a vehicle even after one drink...so should that person never have kids because they were irresponsible at one point? I probably know or met hundreds of kids who drank underage and then drove home from a bar or a house party...you can find them in any college town...and chances are they will one day be a parent despite being irresponsible at one point in time.

Argonaut:

Absolutely. At the same time I am not about to encourage them to breed. Which is what you are trying to do by attacking abortion.

Dang, you caught me. This whole time I've been preaching about personal responsibility but in reality, I was merely trying to encourage people to breed. How you do get in my mind without me knowing?!?!?

Argonaut:

You are right. I am sorry. I misspoke. Let me rephase that: "That's pretty fucking retarded"

Keeping it classy. Too bad you liberals are so two faced, otherwise you could tell the world how the conservatives want to leave the fucking retards to fend for themselves. Keep it coming. People like you do nothing but harm your cause.

Argonaut:

again, the alternative you are suggesting is that people without enough forethought to use contraception be allowed - nay, FORCED - to raise a child.

Yup, just like the state forces ever child to be taken care of. And 'nay' is for horses.

Argonaut:

Do women ever complain of that? I think that's usually a man thing. So there are at least some relationships when a woman is pressured to forego a safety measure in order to accomodate someone's desires.
Yet you feel that taking away her right to make a choice is a fair punishment for a choice she didn't make in the first place .

Clearly she made the choice. Just say, "No condom, no sex". It's done. Ultimately she consents to the sex with no condom but doesn't want to be responsible for her choices.

Argonaut:

Let's assume for a second that it is true for women. What stops guys from putting a condom on? Can't exactly force someone to get an abortion...

I'm not sure what you are assuming. It's much easier to not get pregnant than it is to get pregnant, just given the the numbers.

Argonaut:

So you are saying that guys lie and mislead. Yet women should be punished for falling a victim to fraud?Are you trying to create a situation where it's impossible to have sex outside of marriage and cockblock your bros?

Yes, I am saying guys can be assholes. In fact, I live with a guy that is the ring leader of the movement...it's very entertaining, lol. And no, I'm not trying to create a situation where it's impossible to have sex outside of marriage, nor am I attempting to cockblock anyone...I'm just advocating that abortion is a serious medical procedure and with serious psychological implications...but we don't view it as such in our society because it's used as a viable alternative to protection instead of the last resort. Guys don't care as much about girls getting because they don't view it as their problem...fact is, it could be their problem, a financial problem...for the next 18 years. Guys should always wear condoms and consider pulling out with any randoms they are hooking up with and girls should be rocking that BC hard and demanding that the guy wear a condom and even pull out if that is the length they want to go to. Said ring leader above would sleep with his on again off again gf with no protection. He knocked her up and there was no talk about what to do, he just said I'll pay for the abortion. She did it and was (maybe still is) having a serious impact on her psychologically and he didn't think anything of it until he mentioned it to his mom and his mom told him that she near aborted him (not sure what the reason was). Then he had second thoughts but obviously it was too late. I think we take the whole situation very lightly in this country...too lightly.

Argonaut:

Are you familiar with the term "shotgun wedding"? They weren't exactly marrying and THEN getting pregnant.
Are you suggesting that men today should be forced into marriage and subsequent splitting of assets just because they weren't careful when fooling around?

The reports that I've read said the pregnancies occurred to married woman...implying that they were already married when they got pregnant. But, if you have proof otherwise, I'll look at it. And no, I'm not suggesting that men be forced into marriage. I am curious if you are actually dumb, or just playing dumb in an effort to be an ass??

Argonaut:

Because it is not economically viable anymore?

Good call, it's much better to get knocked up at 16.

Argonaut:

I don't care about policing someone's morality if it doesn't affect me, however the so-called "moral decay" is kinda funny, because just as many if not more pregnancies started out of wedlock before, they just didn't end there.

Honestly, the one reason I'm not a full on advocate against abortion is because I don't think the government should police morality, but I also understand that there is a negative impact when you remove morality from society. I actually tend to think that abortion is more a result of moral decay, as opposed to the genesis of it, but it's partly the broken window theory.

Argonaut:

The girl's parents either forced the offending party into marriage within the first couple of months of pregnancy, or drove her out to mexico or flew her to europe to get an abortion.

I'm certainly not aware of this happening in abundance, but again, if you have proof please post it.

Argonaut:

but also a lot more likely from unprotected sex than cancer is from smoking.

Certainly, but no one is forcing the majority of people to practice unsafe sex or smoke, for that matter...so rather avoidable in both cases.

Argonaut:

does the sports drink also cure custody battles and child support?

Seems very unlikely, but you never know what the future holds.

Argonaut:

The parachutes, aka abortions, did not exist for the longest time, yet that didn't prevent people from sky-diving. Your naive view of cause and effect is exhausting. Isn't "The Scarlet Letter" supposed to be required reading in high school?

Great point, people were having sex but not having abortions...and civilization managed to survive without it. Go figure. But now they need to be legal so kids that may have illnesses won't suffer and so crime won't get worse.

Argonaut:

then you of all people should know how much the system chews them up and spits them.

Unfortunately I don't. Most of the kids we fostered where eventually adopted by new parents or custody was worked out with relatives, etc.

Argonaut:

You tell me

I'm not going to taste it.

Argonaut:

good for you. keep donating. just don't expect ME to pay for the causes you consider important. I would like to put MY money towards things I find important.

I don't expect you to. But in return I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions, or should I say, organizations that support abortion. Sound fair?

Argonaut:

gestational age of a fetus

But that doesn't matter if the doctor is willing to lie.

Argonaut:

Are you suggesting that everyone should sign their entire paycheck to the government? Going off your comparison of tax code with abortion.

Nope.

Argonaut:

oh, so you seem to think that cancer is a real illness, and anxiety disorder isn't? Did you know that the alternative class of medication for anxiety is benzodiazepines, and they are not only more destructive to a patient's health and addictive, they also impair performance and reaction to a higher degree. So because you think that anxiety sufferers should not get to smoke marijuana, since it can be used as a recreational drug, you are in essence advocating that they be more fucked up and more unhealthy by sticking to the traditional treatment course?
BTW, vicodin is a narcotic pain pill, and people get it for "minor things" like getting teeth pulled or back discomfort after a minor car accident (along with flexeril/soma). And don't get me started on HC tussive cough syrup - people get it for something as minor as a little chest congestion. Someone like you should become a doctor and tell those pussies to suck it up instead, yeah?

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't read anymore than the first sentence. I can't fake cancer, but I can fake a anxiety disorder.

Argonaut:

even if that's the case, i would rather be getting revenue from them than paying to keep them in jail.

I would rather them not break the law so I don't have to pay to keep them in jail and we can generate revenue from the taxes they pay on their income and purchases. I always love to hear the argument about how things wouldn't be illegal if there wasn't a law against them. There would be fewer people in jail if we didn't have domestic violence laws too...so we could save some money there too.

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

5/1/12
cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

wtf? are you saying that people who drink and drive with their kid in the car are guilty of just one "irresponsible act"?
I think by the time someone gets to that point they are a fucking alcoholic and are definitely not fit to raise a child.

Maybe some other people can weigh in on this, but I don't know many parents who haven't had a beer or glass of wine at dinner, at one point or another, and then drove home...maybe it was the office Christmas party. I'm not necessarily saying with kids in the car, but just in general. You technically aren't drunk and you aren't breaking the law, but some would say that it's irresponsible to operate a vehicle even after one drink...so should that person never have kids because they were irresponsible at one point? I probably know or met hundreds of kids who drank underage and then drove home from a bar or a house party...you can find them in any college town...and chances are they will one day be a parent despite being irresponsible at one point in time.

Drunk-driving as a 22 year old is one thing, drunk-driving as a 30 year old is completely different. By that time in life you should already know if you will be drinking, and have enough forethought to arrange for a designated driver. It's not that fucking hard. Can a dumbass college student become more responsible? Absolutely. Are they responsible enough to have a kid WHILE they are drunk-driving? No, not really.
And if they know they have to drive their kid somewhere and don't have enough self- control to not drink, then I don't see how they can possibly not fuck up a kid. Even if the kid gets lucky and their drunk dumbass parent doesn't get them killed.

cphbravo96:

Dang, you caught me. This whole time I've been preaching about personal responsibility but in reality, I was merely trying to encourage people to breed. How you do get in my mind without me knowing?!?!?

i don't necessarily mean that it is your intention to make them breed, I am informing you of the consequence of your actions. You are too caught up in the feel-good do-right public image aspect of your stance to step back and evaluate what would actually happen.

cphbravo96:

Keeping it classy. Too bad you liberals are so two faced, otherwise you could tell the world how the conservatives want to leave the fucking retards to fend for themselves. Keep it coming. People like you do nothing but harm your cause.

huh? why do you think I am a liberal? my stance is actually very conservative, I want to eliminate the drain on taxpayers' money by giving the people in control of the drain a right to put a plug in.

cphbravo96:

Yup, just like the state forces ever child to be taken care of. And 'nay' is for horses.

"Neigh" is for horses, "Nay" is a Middle English "No".
Yup, and when the child isn't taken care of by his/her parents, the state uses our money to do so.
So anyone wanting to diminish government involvement and redistribution of wealth would prefer that people a.have kids they planned for and have resources for and b. don't have kids they don't have resources for.

cphbravo96:

Clearly she made the choice. Just say, "No condom, no sex". It's done. Ultimately she consents to the sex with no condom but doesn't want to be responsible for her choices.

That's if you say "ok, no prob".
But you don't say "ok, no prob". By your own admission someone who isn't you would cite all kinds of "reasons" for why condom is not an option, and create a situation where "no condom, no sex" becomes "no condom, no relationship"

cphbravo96:

Yes, I am saying guys can be assholes. In fact, I live with a guy that is the ring leader of the movement...it's very entertaining, lol.

Hm, if you are such a supporter of fetus baby cause, how can you be entertained when some asshole tricks women into getting pregnant, and moreover expect women to be responsible for the choice they made on the basis of misleading information?

cphbravo96:

And no, I'm not trying to create a situation where it's impossible to have sex outside of marriage, nor am I attempting to cockblock anyone...I'm just advocating that abortion is a serious medical procedure and with serious psychological implications...

yet it is entertaining to you when your roommate puts women in that situation, i see...

cphbravo96:

Guys should always wear condoms and consider pulling out with any randoms they are hooking up with and girls should be rocking that BC hard and demanding that the guy wear a condom and even pull out if that is the length they want to go to.

Agree 100 %. However this entire discussion is about punishing women for something a guy is just as responsible for.

cphbravo96:

Said ring leader above would sleep with his on again off again gf with no protection. He knocked her up and there was no talk about what to do, he just said I'll pay for the abortion. She did it and was (maybe still is) having a serious impact on her psychologically and he didn't think anything of it until he mentioned it to his mom and his mom told him that she near aborted him (not sure what the reason was). Then he had second thoughts but obviously it was too late. I think we take the whole situation very lightly in this country...too lightly.

I agree. You find your dbag roommate's reprehensible conduct entertaining and chose to focus instead on attacking women's rights.

cphbravo96:

The reports that I've read said the pregnancies occurred to married woman...implying that they were already married when they got pregnant. But, if you have proof otherwise, I'll look at it. And no, I'm not suggesting that men be forced into marriage. I am curious if you are actually dumb, or just playing dumb in an effort to be an ass??

where did you find those reports? "news from the pulpit" ?
Because guttmacher institute does implicate shotgun weddings as a cause of many married teenage births.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

In contrast to the days of the "shotgun marriage," very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

Because it is not economically viable anymore?

Good call, it's much better to get knocked up at 16.

"Get married and have a baby right after HS" and "Get knocked up before finishing high school" aren't the only options.

cphbravo96:

I'm certainly not aware of this happening in abundance, but again, if you have proof please post it.

proof of a shotgun marriage? It's an idiom in the English language, that alone should let you know that it happened often enough to be recognized as a social trend.
Traveling to another country obviously didn't happen as often, as it was reserved only for the rich.

cphbravo96:

Certainly, but no one is forcing the majority of people to practice unsafe sex or smoke, for that matter...so rather avoidable in both cases.

Agreed. Yet here you are attacking abortion and not cancer treatments.

cphbravo96:

Great point, people were having sex but not having abortions...and civilization managed to survive without it. Go figure. But now they need to be legal so kids that may have illnesses won't suffer and so crime won't get worse.

people survived for centuries without iphones, TV, cars, or the internet. Yet I am sure you would argue that now you need all those things.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

good for you. keep donating. just don't expect ME to pay for the causes you consider important. I would like to put MY money towards things I find important.

I don't expect you to. But in return I don't want my tax dollars funding abortions, or should I say, organizations that support abortion. Sound fair?

There are no tax dollars funding abortions. Although there should be.

cphbravo96:

But that doesn't matter if the doctor is willing to lie.

what percentage of doctors is willing to put on the line their 8 years of study time and 200 k student loan burden in order to help some dumbass that didn't know for 6 months that she was pregnant?

cphbravo96:

Blah, blah, blah. I didn't read anymore than the first sentence. I can't fake cancer, but I can fake a anxiety disorder.

Some people can fake schyzo, yet it doesn't mean there aren's psycho people with visions, or that they shouldn't be treated for their illness.

cphbravo96:

I would rather them not break the law so I don't have to pay to keep them in jail and we can generate revenue from the taxes they pay on their income and purchases.

since we are dreaming here, I wish for word peace and for everyone to get along and give me their money and elect me as their ruler.

cphbravo96:

I always love to hear the argument about how things wouldn't be illegal if there wasn't a law against them. There would be fewer people in jail if we didn't have domestic violence laws too...so we could save some money there too.

Regards

Domestic violence hurts people and society, an occasional hippie skirting the legislation doesn't.

More is good, all is better

5/2/12

Just a warning, I didn't respond to everything for lack of time, but I tried to address the main points...

Argonaut:

huh? why do you think I am a liberal? my stance is actually very conservative, I want to eliminate the drain on taxpayers' money by giving the people in control of the drain a right to put a plug in.

If you are conservative, I would greatly appreciate if you would conduct yourself in a more appropriate matter. I realize this is just a web forum and that this a hot button issue, but saying derogatory things does nothing to further your cause and it certain doesn't make others appreciate what you have to say...just a suggestion. As far as being a drain, I'm not an expert on abortion by any means, but I don't know that there is real evidence that legalized abortion does that. The validity of the crime reduction claims have been called into question, which shots a big hole in one of the main justifications for it and social welfare funding continues to rise even thought abortions are legal.

Argonaut:

"Neigh" is for horses, "Nay" is a Middle English "No".

Just my attempt at some humor.

Argonaut:

Yup, and when the child isn't taken care of by his/her parents, the state uses our money to do so.
So anyone wanting to diminish government involvement and redistribution of wealth would prefer that people a.have kids they planned for and have resources for and b. don't have kids they don't have resources for.

But legalized abortion doesn't guarantee this. As stated above, abortions can be had just about anywhere yet there are mothers with litters of kids that she's unable to support. Wouldn't all of that disappeared shortly after Roe v. Wade?

Argonaut:

That's if you say "ok, no prob".
But you don't say "ok, no prob". By your own admission someone who isn't you would cite all kinds of "reasons" for why condom is not an option, and create a situation where "no condom, no sex" becomes "no condom, no relationship"

But at the end of the day, short of rape, it's still the woman's choice. I know guys can be assholes and try to convince women not to worry, etc. but that shouldn't matter. Is it not ironic that the main slogan for the whole pro-choice campaign is that it's the woman's choice, yet when it comes to having the sex that creates the baby, it's not actually her choice?

Argonaut:

Hm, if you are such a supporter of fetus baby cause, how can you be entertained when some asshole tricks women into getting pregnant, and moreover expect women to be responsible for the choice they made on the basis of misleading information?

I never said that he tricks women into getting pregnant, I said that he has unprotected sex with his (on again/off again) gf. There's no trick. And I'm certainly not entertained by the situation as a whole, just surprised at how callous he was about the abortion until he found out that he was nearly a victim.

Argonaut:

yet it is entertaining to you when your roommate puts women in that situation, i see...

Again, not entertaining and there was no intention on his part, short of a grown man making bad decisions.

Argonaut:

Agree 100 %. However this entire discussion is about punishing women for something a guy is just as responsible for.

If the guy is equally as responsible for the pregnancy, shouldn't he have a say in whether it is carried to term (one way or the other)?

Argonaut:

I agree. You find your dbag roommate's reprehensible conduct entertaining and chose to focus instead on attacking women's rights.

Again...not entertaining. And no, I'm not attacking the woman's right, I'm attacking her responsibility, or better yet, her inability to make more responsible choices.

Argonaut:

where did you find those reports? "news from the pulpit" ?
Because guttmacher institute does implicate shotgun weddings as a cause of many married teenage births.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

I disagree entirely. The actually numerical stats show that the 'only' 13% of childbirths were to unwed mothers in the 1950s, compared to 79% in 2000. They clearly state that a "second trend" is that teens no longer get married after getting pregnant, like they might used to...they never give any sort of statistics to imply to any real significant that shotgun weddings are the reason that the 1950s teens may have been considered 'married' at the time of childbirth...they just appear to be stating the change in the level of responsibility of the expecting parents...saying that the father doesn't 'step up' to the plate anymore.

At any rate, I would gladly take shotgun weddings since two-parent households have a poverty rate of about 6.2% vs. 27.3% for a single-parent household. I've read that adolescents from single-parent households are 3x more likely to be depressed than those from two-parent households. I've also read that children from a single-parent household account for 72% of teenage murderers, 60% percent of people who commit rape crimes and are eleven times more likely to exhibit violent behavior. Very startling statistics for sure, but that is the 'moral decay' I was referencing before.

Argonaut:

In contrast to the days of the "shotgun marriage," very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born.

Argonaut:

Agreed. Yet here you are attacking abortion and not cancer treatments.

I'm not mad at abortion, I'm mad at the people who get them for being irresponsible. Just like I lecture family members that smoke for doing something that is also super irresponsible.

Argonaut:

people survived for centuries without iphones, TV, cars, or the internet. Yet I am sure you would argue that now you need all those things.

I'm not advocating that the use of iPhones, TVs, cars or the Internet is irresponsible...unless you are using your iPhone to watch TV or access the Internet while you are driving that car. The issue here is that people are essentially using blackmail to advocate for abortion, saying that if abortion is outlawed, we will have more crime and our tax rates will increase because we will have to support a bunch of babies that are unwanted. Again, I don't think there is any data that really proves that.

Argonaut:

There are no tax dollars funding abortions. Although there should be.

That's a ruse if ever one existed. No federal dollars fund abortions, but they fund the organizations that provide them. Of course the money that comes from the government is used for other things, but without it, that organization would have to make a choice as to whether or not they fund the abortions with their money or the other programs that they offer. It's like my parents telling me they aren't going to give me anymore money because they don't want to support my drug habit but I tell them that I am paying rent with their money and buying the drugs with my money. It's a joke.

By the way, I don't have a drug habit.

Argonaut:

what percentage of doctors is willing to put on the line their 8 years of study time and 200 k student loan burden in order to help some dumbass that didn't know for 6 months that she was pregnant?

I don't know, but it's possible. Truthfully, you only really need to have a few.

Argonaut:

Some people can fake schyzo, yet it doesn't mean there aren's psycho people with visions, or that they shouldn't be treated for their illness.

I'm not sure what the point here is. I'm just saying that the burden of proof to get medical marijuana is very low. You can search the internet and find referrals to doctors that are 'friendly'. I am NOT saying that it can't or doesn't serve a legitimate purpose but people often advocate the legalization based on the medicinal purposes and many people support that cause because they simply want to get high. This is along the lines of saying abortion has to be legal because we can't allow pregnancies from incest to come to term...when, in fact, incest accounts for less than 1% of all abortions.

Argonaut:

Domestic violence hurts people and society, an occasional hippie skirting the legislation doesn't.

And if some, or a lot of that domestic violence is a result of drug use there should be some consideration as to whether or not it should be legalized.

Thanks for the debate, it's been insightful to say the least.

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

5/4/12
cphbravo96:

If you are conservative, I would greatly appreciate if you would conduct yourself in a more appropriate matter.

Which is? Am I missing some secret handshake?

cphbravo96:

I realize this is just a web forum and that this a hot button issue, but saying derogatory things does nothing to further your cause and it certain doesn't make others appreciate what you have to say...just a suggestion.

You would have to give me examples of what you are objecting to. I can't think of anything derogatory I said. I have actually made a lot of effort to be patient and kind. It really hurts that you choose to concentrate on the bad

cphbravo96:

As far as being a drain, I'm not an expert on abortion by any means, but I don't know that there is real evidence that legalized abortion does that.

The demographics of people that get abortions are the evidence. 86.2% of women getting abortions have family income of less than 60 k, 48.2% have family incomes of less than 30 k.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

it costs about 10 k for a baby's fist year alone
http://www.babycenter.com/0_the-real-cost-of-raisi...

cphbravo96:

The validity of the crime reduction claims have been called into question, which shots a big hole in one of the main justifications for it and social welfare funding continues to rise even thought abortions are legal.

Poor people are over-represented in crime. Encouraging them to breed and as a result not only increase the number of poor people, but also become even more poor themselves is certainly not a crime-reducing measure.

In case you haven't noticed, the population has grown by 50% since Roe vs. Wade.

Increased population density is correlated with increased rates of crime
http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/harries.html

Yet the crime rates have not only been not increasing, they have been dropping.
So whoever calls the validity of the crime reduction claims in question is either a troll or a dumbass.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

"Neigh" is for horses, "Nay" is a Middle English "No".

Just my attempt at some humor.

lies......

cphbravo96:

But legalized abortion doesn't guarantee this. As stated above, abortions can be had just about anywhere yet there are mothers with litters of kids that she's unable to support. Wouldn't all of that disappeared shortly after Roe v. Wade?

You can't force someone to get an abortion. And of course the option of abortion doesn't guarantee that all poor women would make use of it. But not having it would ensure that most of them won't make use of it. I am interested in minimizing the number of women with litters of kids she can't support, not maximizing it.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

That's if you say "ok, no prob".
But you don't say "ok, no prob". By your own admission someone who isn't you would cite all kinds of "reasons" for why condom is not an option, and create a situation where "no condom, no sex" becomes "no condom, no relationship"

But at the end of the day, short of rape, it's still the woman's choice.

I know guys can be assholes and try to convince women not to worry, etc. but that shouldn't matter. Is it not ironic that the main slogan for the whole pro-choice campaign is that it's the woman's choice, yet when it comes to having the sex that creates the baby, it's not actually her choice?

Absolute fucking bullshit. If someone who has you by the balls asks you for something, you will do/give it. And even though they are not literally holding a gun to your head, you can't call that a "choice".
It's a choice between doing it what you are asked and getting your nuts chopped off, not a choice between doing what you are asked and not doing what you are asked.

Women are generally relationship-oriented, even an older ball-busting woman would have trouble saying "no condom no relationship, fuck you i dont need you". Half the girls getting abortions are under 25 - not only are they averse to doing anything that they perceive would be "ruining a relationship", most of them still haven't yet learned how to spot and stay away from a major douchebag.

cphbravo96:

If the guy is equally as responsible for the pregnancy, shouldn't he have a say in whether it is carried to term (one way or the other)?

I don't think the responsibility ever grants the responsible party decision-making rights about a situation. The most affected party usually has more say in decisions about remediation. If it was as you suggest, BP would have been the one deciding what needs to be done after the macondo blow out.

cphbravo96:

I disagree entirely. The actually numerical stats show that the 'only' 13% of childbirths were to unwed mothers in the 1950s, compared to 79% in 2000. They clearly state that a "second trend" is that teens no longer get married after getting pregnant, like they might used to...

do you know what a shotgun wedding is? I assume you are not from the south?

Shotgun weddings have become less common as the stigma associated with out-of-wedlock births has gradually faded and the number of such births has increased; the increasing availability of birth control and abortion, as well as material support to unwed mothers such as welfare has also reduced the perceived need for such measures.

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

cphbravo96:

they never give any sort of statistics to imply to any real significant that shotgun weddings are the reason that the 1950s teens may have been considered 'married' at the time of childbirth...they just appear to be stating the change in the level of responsibility of the expecting parents...saying that the father doesn't 'step up' to the plate anymore.

the point is that teens were as morally decayed in the 50's as they are now. They were fucking outside of marriage and getting pregnant like they do now too.

cphbravo96:

At any rate, I would gladly take shotgun weddings since two-parent households have a poverty rate of about 6.2% vs. 27.3% for a single-parent household. I've read that adolescents from single-parent households are 3x more likely to be depressed than those from two-parent households. I've also read that children from a single-parent household account for 72% of teenage murderers, 60% percent of people who commit rape crimes and are eleven times more likely to exhibit violent behavior. Very startling statistics for sure, but that is the 'moral decay' I was referencing before.

has nothing to do with moral decay and everything to do with poverty. Single parents can adequately raise children if they have sufficient income to make sure the child is in a stable environment and gets proper nutrition and adult supervision. A kid that has to go to school with homework unfinished because their lights are turned off for nonpayment is set up for failure from the get go.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

Agreed. Yet here you are attacking abortion and not cancer treatments.

I'm not mad at abortion, I'm mad at the people who get them for being irresponsible. Just like I lecture family members that smoke for doing something that is also super irresponsible.

Nobody is arguing with the assertion that people should be more responsible and careful. The question is what to do when they are not. Allow them to fix the mistake and move on, or blow up the mistake to enormous proportions and make everyone, including innocent parties like me and my future children for example, pay for it?

cphbravo96:

I'm not advocating that the use of iPhones, TVs, cars or the Internet is irresponsible...

you are saying people survived without abortion. I'm saying they survived without iphones too.
I am personally not willing to give up my iphone just because generations of people survived without it and it's not really necessary.

cphbravo96:

The issue here is that people are essentially using blackmail to advocate for abortion, saying that if abortion is outlawed, we will have more crime and our tax rates will increase because we will have to support a bunch of babies that are unwanted.

even if it were not true, it still wouldn't be blackmail.

cphbravo96:

Again, I don't think there is any data that really proves that.

plenty of data, you just chose to ignore it

cphbravo96:

That's a ruse if ever one existed. No federal dollars fund abortions, but they fund the organizations that provide them.
Of course the money that comes from the government is used for other things, but without it, that organization would have to make a choice as to whether or not they fund the abortions with their money or the other programs that they offer. It's like my parents telling me they aren't going to give me anymore money because they don't want to support my drug habit but I tell them that I am paying rent with their money and buying the drugs with my money. It's a joke.

By the way, I don't have a drug habit.

planned parenthood locations that depend on government funding do not offer abortions. They only offer screening for cancers/STDs, plus birth control options.
As someone involved in finance surely you understand the concept of budget allocations.
Unless I am misunderstanding you and you are actually advocating economic terrorism against the organization and millions of its patients. In which case raising the likelyhood of cancer for thousands of people to save a few fetuses you then plan to deprive of medical care makes me wonder if you do have a drug habit.

cphbravo96:

I don't know, but it's possible.

possible but not probable

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

Some people can fake schyzo, yet it doesn't mean there aren's psycho people with visions, or that they shouldn't be treated for their illness.

I'm not sure what the point here is.

the point is that eliminating a treatment option just because there are some people who abuse it is akin to cutting off your head in order to make a headache stop.

cphbravo96:

I'm just saying that the burden of proof to get medical marijuana is very low.

How do you know that? I don't know anyone who has a script, so I can't say what the burden of proof is like. I do know someone who gets oxys for dealing with debilitating back pain due to some bone disease, and that person has to go to regular counseling meetings and get regular drug tests because the potential for abuse and addiction is so high.

cphbravo96:

You can search the internet and find referrals to doctors that are 'friendly'.

sounds like somebody did research... :)

cphbravo96:

I am NOT saying that it can't or doesn't serve a legitimate purpose but people often advocate the legalization based on the medicinal purposes and many people support that cause because they simply want to get high.

Hey, if we not only get to treat the sick, but also get stoners to contribute their pot money to tax revenue, instead of some Mexican cartel, that sounds like a win-win to me.

cphbravo96:

This is along the lines of saying abortion has to be legal because we can't allow pregnancies from incest to come to term...when, in fact, incest accounts for less than 1% of all abortions.

Incest has never been my argument. My argument is population control among the poor. The fewer poor people we have, the more chances they have to work their way up the socioeconomic ladder, the stronger and richer we are as a nation.

cphbravo96:
Argonaut:

Domestic violence hurts people and society, an occasional hippie skirting the legislation doesn't.

And if some, or a lot of that domestic violence is a result of drug use there should be some consideration as to whether or not it should be legalized.

meth, crack, cocaine, and alcohol are the drugs that increase violence. Stoners are probably less violent than the baseline population.

cphbravo96:

Thanks for the debate, it's been insightful to say the least.

Regards

Same here

More is good, all is better

5/7/12
Argonaut:

Poor people are over-represented in crime. Encouraging them to breed and as a result not only increase the number of poor people, but also become even more poor themselves is certainly not a crime-reducing measure.

In case you haven't noticed, the population has grown by 50% since Roe vs. Wade.

Exactly. Poor people have bred and continue to breed in this country even with legalized abortion. You're attempting to treat the symptom by saying that abortion access is crucial to keep the poverty rate down. Abortion is legal and yet they continue to breed like crazy because the government is subsidizing single motherhood and poverty through programs like WIC. We all know that many people keep abortion in mind as a last resort and yet then can't bear to abort once they find out they're pregnant. If you support abortion, that's fine, but don't pretend like it's doing a good job whatsoever of keeping the teenage pregnancy rate down, which it isn't. If we wanted to do that, we'd cut government assistance.

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.

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.

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."

4/27/12

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

Watch it if you have the courage.

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.

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

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

4/27/12

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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."

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
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

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

5/1/12
cphbravo96:
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.

WTF. YOU are a twisted and deranged person if you are willing to kill a 2 year old child in order to promote your agenda of forcing women to pay for "their mistakes" by not being able to abort a fetus with no brain activity.

cphbravo96:

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

Are you a psychiatrist or even a doctor? What makes you think that your diagnosis is more accurate than the one the patients get from their doctors?

cphbravo96:

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.

it doesn't appear that way to me. It appears to me that a low level employee was trying to get the woman out of there without having to confront her herself. If i was getting paid 30-40 k to write down clerical detail, i wouldn't want to be getting into someone else's face - that's the manager's job.

cphbravo96:

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

Yet right after the woman left, the worker went and told her manager. Why would she do that, if she was planning to ignore the stated reason?

More is good, all is better

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...

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.

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."

5/1/12
duffmt6:

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.

truth

More is good, all is better

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
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

5/1/12
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

you have that much experience with that?

More is good, all is better

4/29/12

prolife

4/29/12

.

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!

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.

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.

5/1/12
Abdel:
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.

  1. There's a lot of controversy about morning after pills, from what i understand they are not easily accessible everywhere. Moreover, abstinence-based education does not teach teenagers - who are the most likely demographic to have risky and/or unplanned sex - about contraception and morning-after pills.
    Unfortunately, in this country we have the political climate that allows buffoons like santorum to get enough support to go as far as he has gone. Is contraception better than abortion? You betcha!
    But until we all agree to teach our teenagers and young adults about safe and responsible sex (like they do it in sweden), we need measures to correct mistakes further down the line.
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070318/...
  2. I definitely see no problem with encouraging abortion of defected feti.
    It still should be up to the mother to decide, and if she wants a retarded baby, nobody can tell her different; but as a society we have NO REASON to prohibit a mother from aborting a defective fetus.

More is good, all is better

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
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.

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.

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.

4/30/12
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
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
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
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.

4/30/12
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

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

4/30/12
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

4/30/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

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

4/30/12
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

Fair enough, but your statement should read "You can't murder something that is a non-viable non-sustaining life form."

4/30/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

Fair enough, but your statement should read "You can't murder something that is a non-viable non-sustaining life form."

Yes, well for my personal opinion, the definition of life is self sustaining. The shady part for my definition is whether or not the possibility of development is a legitimate form of the definition. People on life support are not self sustaining, but the controversy there is even greater than abortion because the possibility of recovery is still there, even if it is not immediately apparent.

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

5/1/12
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

Fair enough, but your statement should read "You can't murder something that is a non-viable non-sustaining life form."

you are murdering billions of gut bacteria when you take shits. And they are actually good for you and help you stay healthy and don't suck the life out of you, but I bet you don't consider yourself a cold blooded murderer, do you?

More is good, all is better

5/1/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

Fair enough, but your statement should read "You can't murder something that is a non-viable non-sustaining life form."

you are murdering billions of gut bacteria when you take shits. And they are actually good for you and help you stay healthy and don't suck the life out of you, but I bet you don't consider yourself a cold blooded murderer, do you?

[email protected]@r/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb:
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Synonyms:
noun. homicide - assassination - killing - manslaughter
verb. kill - slay - assassinate - slaughter - butcher

You can't murder a non-human. DUH.

5/1/12
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
bulge_bracket:
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

The fetus is alive. Scientific fact, it is alive. However, does the fetus, the clump of cells that are growing and alive, have human rights and is it human? Or is it the same as a fungus, plant, tumor, etc? That's the question and why so many are iffy on abortion because there's that questionable point in time when the clump of cells becomes "human."

I'm speaking of a self sustaining viable life form. If not for the mother's womb, it could never survive or further develop.

Fair enough, but your statement should read "You can't murder something that is a non-viable non-sustaining life form."

you are murdering billions of gut bacteria when you take shits. And they are actually good for you and help you stay healthy and don't suck the life out of you, but I bet you don't consider yourself a cold blooded murderer, do you?

[email protected]@r/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Verb:
Kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
Synonyms:
noun. homicide - assassination - killing - manslaughter
verb. kill - slay - assassinate - slaughter - butcher

You can't murder a non-human. DUH.

What about when you cut your hair/toenails or cut out a tumor?
they all consist of human cells...

More is good, all is better

5/1/12
Argonaut:

What about when you cut your hair/toenails or cut out a tumor?
they all consist of human cells...

Well, first of all, these aren't living cells (except the tumor). They're dead, and therefore not alive. So the premise is false. The keratin in fingernails and hear is dead, it's inanimate. The nailbead is not, but all of the hair and nails that are visible to you are already dead cells. But let's discuss the tumor. Am I killing a human being by killing a tumor? No, the tumor is something again that can kill me if I don't kill it but it itself is not human. There is no natural process by which fingernail cells or human tumors will sprout new human beings. As I said before, it's a runaway train fallacy, it's like saying "Oh, but if you shave your face and some skin cells come off, you're murdering." No, that's not my point or anyone else's point at all. Am I destroying cells? Yes. Am I destroying a separate organism or something that will become a viable organism if I leave it alone? No. In contrast, when you destroy a fetus, you are killing live cells just like you kill a tumor, as I said before. But the difference is that these cells are in the process of growing/have grown into a new human being. They are the entire cells of the new organism, not just disposable dead hair. The question is if these cells are human or when they become human. Hence the abortion debate. But it's logical suicide to say that "if killing a fetus is murder, killing sperm or killing facial cells is murder."

5/1/12

bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:

What about when you cut your hair/toenails or cut out a tumor?
they all consist of human cells...

But let's discuss the tumor. Am I killing a human being by killing a tumor? No, the tumor is something again that can kill me if I don't kill it but it itself is not human.


what makes it not human? It consists of human cells. And fetus can kill its mother too, so what's the difference?

bulge_bracket:
There is no natural process by which fingernail cells or human tumors will sprout new human beings.

you just haven't given it a chance.
Look at these teratomas and tell me they don't look human!
this one even has teeth

this is a foot in a baby's brain

And what about a fetus-in-fetu? Which if given conditions of amniotic fluid and placenta could potentally evolve into a human being...

More is good, all is better

5/1/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:
Argonaut:

What about when you cut your hair/toenails or cut out a tumor?
they all consist of human cells...

But let's discuss the tumor. Am I killing a human being by killing a tumor? No, the tumor is something again that can kill me if I don't kill it but it itself is not human.

what makes it not human? It consists of human cells. And fetus can kill its mother too, so what's the difference?

bulge_bracket:

There is no natural process by which fingernail cells or human tumors will sprout new human beings.

you just haven't given it a chance.
Look at these teratomas and tell me they don't look human!
this one even has teeth

this is a foot in a baby's brain

And what about a fetus-in-fetu? Which if given conditions of amniotic fluid and placenta could potentally evolve into a human being...

I. already. answered. this. See, you're acting like a 5th grader and making up a really absurd counterargument by asking "Why not? Hmmm? If it's human cells and I'm killing them, I'm killing a human! (Ah, see I got him now, my logic is full-proof, if killing a fetus is killing a human, killing human face cells is killing a human!)" The fact that you either haven't read or just don't understand the earlier argument that differentiates human facial cells and their death via something like shaving from cells in a fetus that are the entirety of a new human being formed, their death akin to destruction of the entire person who's face is being shaved (if the fetus is human), just shows how lucky the pro-choice movement is not to have you as a spokesperson.

I don't care if a tumor has teeth. Can the tumor think? Can it develop a brain? Show me a tumor that someone has that develops an entirely separate person next to it. Show me someone who went from being a normal person to a siamese twin. Show me a tumor that naturally grows into an entire new conscious person without resulting in the death of its host and I will then buy into the argument that killing that type of tumor is even remotely like getting pregnant and getting an abortion. Except it would still only be like a woman getting raped and pregnant since pregnancy is usually a choice.

Stop making such absurd and idiotic arguments.

5/1/12
bulge_bracket:

I. already. answered. this. See, you're acting like a 5th grader and making up a really absurd counterargument by asking "Why not? Hmmm? If it's human cells and I'm killing them, I'm killing a human! (Ah, see I got him now, my logic is full-proof, if killing a fetus is killing a human, killing human face cells is killing a human!)"
The fact that you either haven't read or just don't understand the earlier argument that differentiates human facial cells and their death via something like shaving from cells in a fetus that are the entirety of a new human being formed, their death akin to destruction of the entire person who's face is being shaved (if the fetus is human), just shows how lucky the pro-choice movement is not to have you as a spokesperson.

this is ridiculous, as those are obviously not "human face cells". They are cells capable of differentiating into different types of tissue and growing complete organs. Just like fetus cells.

bulge_bracket:

I don't care if a tumor has teeth. Can the tumor think?

Can the fetus think?

bulge_bracket:

Can it develop a brain?

I am sure it is perfectly capable, if given sufficient nutrients and blood supply.

bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that someone has that develops an entirely separate person next to it. Show me someone who went from being a normal person to a siamese twin.

if you consider fetus a person, surely all siamese twins are born as a result of a normal person going to a siamese twin :)

bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that naturally grows into an entire new conscious person without resulting in the death of its host and I will then buy into the argument that killing that type of tumor is even remotely like getting pregnant and getting an abortion.

most fetuses severely harm the health of their hosts, and some kill their hosts altogether.

bulge_bracket:

Except it would still only be like a woman getting raped and pregnant since pregnancy is usually a choice.

Stop making such absurd and idiotic arguments.

Stop unleashing your unmanageable emotional excesses on me, I'm too tired for your hysterics.

More is good, all is better

5/1/12
Argonaut:
bulge_bracket:

I. already. answered. this. See, you're acting like a 5th grader and making up a really absurd counterargument by asking "Why not? Hmmm? If it's human cells and I'm killing them, I'm killing a human! (Ah, see I got him now, my logic is full-proof, if killing a fetus is killing a human, killing human face cells is killing a human!)"
The fact that you either haven't read or just don't understand the earlier argument that differentiates human facial cells and their death via something like shaving from cells in a fetus that are the entirety of a new human being formed, their death akin to destruction of the entire person who's face is being shaved (if the fetus is human), just shows how lucky the pro-choice movement is not to have you as a spokesperson.

this is ridiculous, as those are obviously not "human face cells". They are cells capable of differentiating into different types of tissue and growing complete organs. Just like fetus cells.

bulge_bracket:

I don't care if a tumor has teeth. Can the tumor think?

Can the fetus think?

bulge_bracket:

Can it develop a brain?

I am sure it is perfectly capable, if given sufficient nutrients and blood supply.

bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that someone has that develops an entirely separate person next to it. Show me someone who went from being a normal person to a siamese twin.

if you consider fetus a person, surely all siamese twins are born as a result of a normal person going to a siamese twin :)

bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that naturally grows into an entire new conscious person without resulting in the death of its host and I will then buy into the argument that killing that type of tumor is even remotely like getting pregnant and getting an abortion.

most fetuses severely harm the health of their hosts, and some kill their hosts altogether.

bulge_bracket:

Except it would still only be like a woman getting raped and pregnant since pregnancy is usually a choice.

Stop making such absurd and idiotic arguments.

Stop unleashing your unmanageable emotional excesses on me, I'm too tired for your hysterics.

Argonaut your arguments suck man. I could give a rats ass about abortion but man, you are just all over the place. Learn to make an intelligent argument that flows from premise to conclusion instead of coming up with insanely bizarre hypotheticals to use as counterarguments. bulge bracket isn't even arguing for pro-life, he's said that the reason people are pro-life stems from the fact that they think the fetus is human, not that it's alive (which it is), and yet somehow you're rambling on about tumors with teeth haha.

bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that someone has that develops an entirely separate person next to it. Show me someone who went from being a normal person to a siamese twin.

Argonaut:

I am sure it is perfectly capable, if given sufficient nutrients and blood supply.

Wtf? Are you a 12 year old? It's perfectly capable? Do you know what something called 'science' is? hahahaha

5/4/12
NDhome1:

Argonaut your arguments suck man. I could give a rats ass about abortion but man, you are just all over the place. Learn to make an intelligent argument that flows from premise to conclusion instead of coming up with insanely bizarre hypotheticals to use as counterarguments. bulge bracket isn't even arguing for pro-life, he's said that the reason people are pro-life stems from the fact that they think the fetus is human, not that it's alive (which it is), and yet somehow you're rambling on about tumors with teeth haha.

You may have not yet learned reading comprehension in your freshman year, so I'm not going to hold you to a high standard, but instead give you the cliff's notes.
Bulge claimed that a fetus is alive in the same way that tumor is alive, even though neither meets the scientific criteria to be considered a stand-alone life-form. I asked him if a tumor is alive, why does he not have a problem with removing tumors. He said that tumors, unlike feti, are incapable of evolving into something more.
So I gave him examples of some highly evolved tumors.

NDhome1:
bulge_bracket:

Show me a tumor that someone has that develops an entirely separate person next to it. Show me someone who went from being a normal person to a siamese twin.

Argonaut:

I am sure it is perfectly capable, if given sufficient nutrients and blood supply.

Wtf? Are you a 12 year old? It's perfectly capable? Do you know what something called 'science' is? hahahaha

Why don't you tell me. I am all ears/eyes.

I don't see why you are so enraged with my hypothesis about the tumors, yet have no problem with the arguments of the "fetus has a capability to be a human being, therefore should be allowed to parasitize off its host" nature

More is good, all is better

4/30/12
streetwannabe:
wolverine19x89:
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.

You cannot murder something that is not alive.

...or, you shouldn't murder something that is alive...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alive
http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-week-b...

Must freak women out to have some dead, lifeless thing in their womb moving all about!

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
wolverine19x89:
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.

How is it biased? Just because you don't want to call the baby a baby doesn't make it my problem. I realize you are just 'erasing your mistake' but others would see that as murdering a baby. Maybe you are the one that's biased, no?

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
cphbravo96:
wolverine19x89:
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.

....Maybe you are the one that's biased, no?

WTF IS THIS I don't even...

I didn't even take a side, you clearly did

WTF

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
wolverine19x89:
cphbravo96:
wolverine19x89:
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.

....Maybe you are the one that's biased, no?

WTF IS THIS I don't even...

I didn't even take a side, you clearly did

WTF

I was doing it to provoke some discussion, because many (most?) people would say it isn't biased, it's reality. The whole conversation, as someone else has pointed out, hinges on whether or not you call the 'thing' inside the womb a person or not. To those that are pro-life, that is their fundamental belief...that you are murdering a baby. On the flip side, most pro-choice supporters just believe you are erasing your mistake or doing the right thing since the mom isn't ready to be a mom, etc.

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

4/29/12

@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.

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...

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...

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."

4/30/12
streetwannabe:
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!

Thanks, seems like no one can take a yolk around here...

4/30/12
Cola Coca:
streetwannabe:
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!

Thanks, seems like no one can take a yolk around here...

I agree! No room for some good banter. But I guess sarcasm doesn't always translate from one computer screen to the next

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

5/1/12
Abdel:
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.

It's like you are saying the government should have more rights than tax payers, because it started parasitizing off of us, so now it is our duty to keep feeding it to the detriment of our own well-being...

More is good, all is better

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

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. ''

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

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

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.

5/1/12
Abdel:
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.

WTF? did you get castrated before the age of 6 or something? I don't know ANYONE who has sex in their early 20s in order to have kids

More is good, all is better

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
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 all.

What about cases in which the mother's health is in danger?

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

4/30/12
streetwannabe:
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 all.

What about cases in which the mother's health is in danger?

Forgot about that one. I think that's valid too. In my opinion the priority of medicine should be in preserving life- if the mother is gonna die, be crippled, etc. it should be up to the mother to decide if she is fit to do so (aka. conscious, sane, etc.)

Reality hits you hard, bro...

4/30/12
MMBinNC:
streetwannabe:
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 all.

What about cases in which the mother's health is in danger?

Forgot about that one. I think that's valid too. In my opinion the priority of medicine should be in preserving life- if the mother is gonna die, be crippled, etc. it should be up to the mother to decide if she is fit to do so (aka. conscious, sane, etc.)

I agree. It is also the government's. Perhaps you don't agree with me and I respect your view, but if abortion (correct application of the procedure) occurs within legal guidelines, there is no life being taken. It is not a developed, self sustaining life form.

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

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."