Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/22/09 12:52 AM, Al6200 wrote:

The thing is that a fetus is a specific type of human,

depends on what you define as human .

the same way that an Oak seed is a specific type of Oak plant.

now were just argueing with labels.

The new survey showed that Americans remained deeply divided on the legality of abortion - with 23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances.

I found this interesting. Not because of the issue at hand, but because apparently the majority, 53%, are in the center. I don't know whether this means that people are moving toward a more centrist view of at least this issue or not, but that is interesting.

By the way 22+23+53=98. What happened to the other 2%?

At 5/22/09 11:09 AM, CBP wrote: By the way 22+23+53=98. What happened to the other 2%?

The 2% is probably I don't know/ No opinion.

At 5/22/09 11:30 AM, ThePretenders wrote:

At 5/22/09 11:09 AM, CBP wrote: By the way 22+23+53=98. What happened to the other 2%?

The 2% is probably I don't know/ No opinion.

Could it also be the margin for error +/- 2?

Look. People should have the right to abort, but the reality is: society has become so decadent that people will get DRUNK one night, fuck someone without a condom and then abort them. That is a sick thing to do, regardless of your position on abortion.

If you don't want to get an abortion, don't get one. Simple as that. Hence the name Pro-choice instead of Pro-compulsory-eradication-of-every-sing le-unborn-fetus-conceived. it's your choice whether or mot you want to have an abortion. If abortions are legal, then everybody wins. Same goes for same-sex marriages, if a government refused to allow same-sex marriages to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, then that government would be making a decision based on the assumption that God is real, which would defeat the purpose of a secular state, albeit a secular state that insists on calling itself 'one nation under God'.

At 5/22/09 12:18 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote: albeit a secular state that insists on calling itself 'one nation under God'.

Just to clarify: I know that abortion is legal in America - more so than in my country - but the statistic was from America, and Americans are the ones who find this sort of thing most controversial, in the western world at least.

At 5/22/09 12:18 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote: If you don't want to get an abortion, don't get one. Simple as that. Hence the name Pro-choice instead of Pro-compulsory-eradication-of-every-sing le-unborn-fetus-conceived. it's your choice whether or mot you want to have an abortion. If abortions are legal, then everybody wins.

The problem is not that people think that abortion is compulsory, but that some people see the potential for overuse of the procedure for frivolous purposes if it isn't restricted, or see the government's lack of controls on the matter as an implicit endorsement of what they believe to be the murder of innocent children. Combine that in with the question of whether or not government health benefits should pay for the procedure (using taxpayer moneys to fund what a new majority of taxpayers do not agree with in many cases), and you have a political issue on your hands.

Same goes for same-sex marriages, if a government refused to allow same-sex marriages to preserve the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, then that government would be making a decision based on the assumption that God is real, which would defeat the purpose of a secular state, albeit a secular state that insists on calling itself 'one nation under God'.

I'm not seeing how this applies to the issue of abortion...

At 5/22/09 01:00 PM, dySWN wrote: I'm not seeing how this applies to the issue of abortion...

Ha ha, Once I start on something, I can't be stopped. I guess it's mainly the same people, though, who have these views.

All that the polls show is that a majority now label themselves as pro-life, not that people's views on abortion have changed.

For instance, the majority of Americans have almost always taken the position that abortions should be illegal except in cases of incest, rape, and when the mother's life is threatend, which is primarily a pro-life stance.

About the only things that have switched are the number of people who want to illegalize ALL abortions and legalize all abortions. Where the number of illegalize all has increased while legalize all has decreased.

Besides, it only makes sense consider the younger generations have become even more "pro-life" than that of their parents and grandparents, with young women making up most of the pro-life youth.

In any event, our current laws and what we know of biology only dictates that the logical position would be pro-life.

Otherwise, we shouldn't grant inheritance rights to the unborn.
We should hold physicians liable for harming the fetus.
We shouldn't be throwing doctors in jail for killing the newborn fetus after a botched abortion.
We shouldn't be giving a fetus any legal rights under the law.

Biologically, a fetus is alive since any standard definition of a cell is considered the lowest form of what we consider to be alive.

And therefore it only makes sense to refer to a fetus as human since we consistantly label the dead and rotting as such. It only seems inconsistant to call a rotting corpse human and yet not call the fetus human when the fetus is more living and alive than the corpse.

So we can conclusively establish that the fetus (during any point) is an alive human with legal recognition and status under the law.

Then there's the whole privacy/consent defense which is nothing more than a last resort.

How can one claim that the fetus wasn't given consent to "invade" the mother when the fetus was forcible put there against its will through the sexual conduct of the parents?

After all, if a cop shows up at your door without a warrant, and you grab him by the collar and throw the cop inside your house and the cop finds something you didn't want him to find, would a judge honestly take your defense seriously if your defense was: "I didn't technically give him consent"?

You would be laughed out of the court room. The only reason why this doesn't happen to women is soley because of guilt, not logic.

Pro-lifer: OMG people who get drunk and get pregnant and want to get an abortion are soooooo stupid lol. Oh but btw I also believe these stupid people should be forced to bring their inevitably stupid offspring into this already over-populated, idiot infested world. Because that's what makes sense.

At 5/22/09 07:31 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Pro-lifer: OMG people who get drunk and get pregnant and want to get an abortion are soooooo stupid lol. Oh but btw I also believe these stupid people should be forced to bring their inevitably stupid offspring into this already over-populated, idiot infested world. Because that's what makes sense.

Since when did any religious doctrine make sense? Conservative politics has always been governed by "strong Christian moral values", which means no matter how many people they alienate, they have God on their side.

At 5/22/09 07:36 PM, LaForge wrote: Since when did any religious doctrine make sense?

Since when did I mention religion.

At 5/22/09 07:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:36 PM, LaForge wrote: Since when did any religious doctrine make sense?

Since when did I mention religion.

You didn't, but the bible specifically mentions abortions as being wrong. I didn't know they had them in bible days, but whatever.

At 5/22/09 07:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:36 PM, LaForge wrote: Since when did any religious doctrine make sense?

Since when did I mention religion.

The pro-life argument is generally a Conservative Christian one. You didn't mention it specifically, but you didn't need to.

At 5/22/09 07:31 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Pro-lifer: OMG people who get drunk and get pregnant and want to get an abortion are soooooo stupid lol. Oh but btw I also believe these stupid people should be forced to bring their inevitably stupid offspring into this already over-populated, idiot infested world. Because that's what makes sense.

Are you saying it's not stupid?

Although I do love how you avoided any response to my post.

But what should I expect from someone who has no real counter-argument?

At 5/22/09 07:41 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:36 PM, LaForge wrote: Since when did any religious doctrine make sense?

Since when did I mention religion.

The pro-life argument is generally a Conservative Christian one. You didn't mention it specifically, but you didn't need to.

Care to explain my post then? Which didn't have a single inkling of religion in it at all?

What of those younger generations I mentioned? They're less religious than their parents and grandparents and are yet more pro-life or take a pro-life stance.

Is your overly used up "it's religion" bullshit argument still going to work because you don't have a real argument?

At 5/22/09 07:44 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:41 PM, LaForge wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:38 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:36 PM, LaForge wrote: Since when did any religious doctrine make sense?

Since when did I mention religion.

The pro-life argument is generally a Conservative Christian one. You didn't mention it specifically, but you didn't need to.

Care to explain my post then? Which didn't have a single inkling of religion in it at all?

What of those younger generations I mentioned? They're less religious than their parents and grandparents and are yet more pro-life or take a pro-life stance.

Is your overly used up "it's religion" bullshit argument still going to work because you don't have a real argument?

I've met a lot of fucking people in my short time on this planet. I've never met an atheist who was pro-life. I've never met a theist who was pro-choice.

It's religion.

At 5/22/09 07:47 PM, LaForge wrote:

I've met a lot of fucking people in my short time on this planet. I've never met an atheist who was pro-life. I've never met a theist who was pro-choice.

It's religion.

Because google is so hard to use...

Churches supported abortion before Roe v Wade

Less than 1% of young adults hold biblical worldview.

Younger people less religious, less anti-religion, and more pro-life than their parents.

Since the less religious each generation gets while also being more pro-life, how could you make such an ignorant statement?

At 5/22/09 07:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Although I do love how you avoided any response to my post.

A fetus has no more right to life than any of the billions of fungae and bacteria you kill everyday. Being alive =/= having emotions, being self-aware or being capable of any thought process. No one loved the fetus, or even knew it. It had no friends, no memories, no personality and no achievements. If it's wrong to kill a fetus because it'll one day have all these things, then it's surely also wrong for any woman at any given time not to be pregnant. Surely every woman robs a potential child of life every month. An egg is just as aware as the fetus, the egg could be the next Einstein, but you wouldn't make a law against not being pregnant.

It's stupid to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. If I don't want something, I tend not to be that bothered when no one looks after it.

At 5/17/09 11:16 PM, Xemras wrote:

'Value' is not subjective. Something having 'value' means that somebody else wants it.

"Somebody" perhaps, but not "everybody".

If even one person wants what you have, or what you can do, then what you have possesses value. The caliber of that value is judged by how many want it, and what currency they are willing to trade for it.

Anything that someone is willing to pay or trade for has 'value'. Is the value of water, food, and shelter subjective? How about the value of oxygen? Or sunlight? Or manpower?

Values is one thing. Necessity is another.

The two are the same, genius. Water is necessary and thus posesses value. Same with shelter. Anything that has 'value' is called 'necessary' by someone.

You're talking about force. Taking something you want is, obviously, the opposite of trading for it.

Obviously. :: rolls eyes ::

You say obviously, because insults are easier than logic - yet the premise that you're arguing doesn't seem to possess this 'obvious' fact. Taking what you want with a club is not the same as a fair trade of value for value. No matter what anyone says, the two cannot be the same.

Be it a law or a club you use to take what you want, you are still living by a doctrine of non-value.

How so? Why would such people as the Vikings and the Conquistidors not pillage and enslave various indigenous peoples if they did not "value" the things the natives possessed in the first place?

Those that live by a doctrine of non-value, such as yourself, are eventually faced with the choice of dying or adapting - as did the Vikings, and conquistidors.

And that's the point to this thread, isn't it? Assuming a role of 'pro-life' is also assuming the role of 'anti-freedom'. To assume that role is to attempt to achieve what you want not through trade or value, but through force of law.

As Machiavelli once said: "Whatever works."

That's also the code of child molesters, slavers, dictators, and bigots.
Way to define yourself.

None of us has any real rights to begin with other than what we are able to hold for ourselves, either through strength or guile - or both.

And that's why you will always be a slave to society and it's norms and folkways - because you think like a slave. You believed them when they told you that you had a right to nothing but what was dangled on the end of the stick.
Be a good boy, and keep chasing that carrot.

And thus - the free market. I have twenty shovels and no hammers. You have twenty hammers and no shovels. By ourselves, our tools are useless. Allowing trade, though, gives both of our tools value.

Or I could simply kill you and take your things for myself or you could do the same to me. Voluntary exchange is irrelevant at this point.

Again, the doctrine of a thug or rapist or church. One who relies on thuggery and force is worthless to society, and thus is worthless as an individual. Of course, you must realize the irony of supporting vikings, rapists, and slavers to justify saving little babies. You're a great guy, really. I mean it.

At 5/22/09 07:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Are you saying it's not stupid?

Hey don't you worry, I fucking hate those uneducated morons who think booze and sex is all there is to life.
And that's one of the reasons WHY I am pro-choice, because the less of those plebs there are in the world, the better.
It makes NO SENSE to first claim they're stupid, but then claim you want them to HAVE to bring more stupid people into the world.

Although I do love how you avoided any response to my post.

Fuck off. This had nothing to do with your post.

But what should I expect from someone who has no real counter-argument?

Now you're just needlessly being a douche. Becuase I chose to address other people's posts first does not mean I "have no real counter-argument".

At 5/22/09 08:29 PM, evil-clown-12 wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:42 PM, Memorize wrote: Although I do love how you avoided any response to my post.

A fetus has no more right to life than any of the billions of fungae and bacteria you kill everyday. Being alive =/= having emotions, being self-aware or being capable of any thought process. No one loved the fetus, or even knew it.

Except that none of those constitute what is and isn't alive.

A cell is biologically considered to be alive, yet it exhibits none of those qualities that you mentioned.

Meaning that everything you just said about what it is to be "alive" is blatantly false. And if you have a problem with it, then you don't have a problem with me, but rather you have a problem with the scientific community and biology textbooks.

At 5/22/09 08:03 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/22/09 07:47 PM, LaForge wrote:

I've met a lot of fucking people in my short time on this planet. I've never met an atheist who was pro-life. I've never met a theist who was pro-choice.

It's religion.

Because google is so hard to use...

Churches supported abortion before Roe v Wade

Less than 1% of young adults hold biblical worldview.

Younger people less religious, less anti-religion, and more pro-life than their parents.

Since the less religious each generation gets while also being more pro-life, how could you make such an ignorant statement?

You're saying I'm ignorant of the people I've met in my own fucking life? You're way too eager to fight with me dude, and I'm not going to instigate it.

At 5/22/09 09:52 PM, LaForge wrote:

You're saying I'm ignorant of the people I've met in my own fucking life? You're way too eager to fight with me dude, and I'm not going to instigate it.

Right, you're not instigating anything...

Despite insulting religious people and claiming religion is due to people being pro-life even though that's blatantly false with the younger generations.

i think it could lead to a lot of illegal abortions in the future ^^

<~~ Pro-Choice

i understand the pro-life arguments, but having the choice to decide not to have a baby is better than being FORCED to have that baby, at 13 years old, living in a box, with no shoes, and no father for the child, because you were raped, knowing full well that baby will probably have a horrible life and hate the world around him/her.

There are many more situations i could come up with, but you get the point.

At 5/16/09 06:21 PM, Soapbubble wrote: Well... That sucks. Norway is pretty much the opposite. I can't see how people can be against abortion...

Because they're against the killing of innocent lives?

At 5/23/09 01:05 AM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote:

At 5/16/09 06:21 PM, Soapbubble wrote: Well... That sucks. Norway is pretty much the opposite. I can't see how people can be against abortion...

Because they're against the killing of innocent lives?

Only of human life though.

At 5/23/09 01:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Only of human life though.

What is considered human?

At 5/23/09 01:16 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 5/23/09 01:11 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Only of human life though.

What is considered human?

Mm as soon as I posted I thought this would happen. Let me clarify what I mean.
In my post i was not necessarily saying that I classify fetuses as "human" (or not human), but rather the point I was attempting to make was that most pro-lifers are not vegetarians and thus obviously don't have a problem with the killing of animals, contrary to the apparent message of the post I was replying to.