Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/13/11 07:58 PM, benmitchell0036 wrote: You set yourself up as one of the truly educated, and yet you talk about sin. Also, you can't say that children conceived through rape will grow up to commit rape, that's a huge lie. There are many factors that lead people to rape.

I was just joking around, but now I feel bad since there are likely people who actually share the logic in my initial post and may agree with me. I take it back, babe.

At 12/13/11 07:11 PM, benmitchell0036 wrote: Why should topics not be discussed just because they are tricky? Isn't that even more reason to discuss them, to try and figure them out?

At 12/13/11 07:13 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: You are still able to have an opinion, even though it may not be well-educated :). Ask questions. Learn about it if it's a passion for you. Don't let others (especially those who claim to be perfect experts) deter you from "tricky subjects"!

Don't tell me I'm the only one who got the joke.
"Abortion is a tricky subject, leave it to the experts."
His name is WreckCuntsDaily guys.

I'm cool with abortion in any case. I don't grieve when I don't use every single one of my sperm cells; thousands of potential lives wasted. So I don't care if a slightly developed foetus is 'wasted' either. I also don't believe that they are even close to being considered a concious being anyway, at the stage they are aborted at.

At 12/13/11 08:02 PM, Chumbawamba wrote:

I was just joking around, but now I feel bad since there are likely people who actually share the logic in my initial post and may agree with me. I take it back, babe.

Thanks for the clarification hunny.

First of all let's get some one here who has actually been pregnant first before we go in the specifics of whether or not abortion is right.

And as for my opinion, I'm somewhat grey towards this, despite being catholic, I love the trinity and all, but there are some things I feel the church does wrong with. Which shouldn't be heresy to say, its run by humans, there are going to be mistakes now and again. Jesus isn't running the thing from Rome, and we've had bad Popes before.

At 12/13/11 08:56 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: First of all let's get some one here who has actually been pregnant first before we go in the specifics of whether or not abortion is right.

As stupid as this may sound, I fail to see how a woman who's gotten pregnant before is somehow more qualified than we are to discuss whether an abortion is ethical or not.

At 12/13/11 07:58 PM, Tateos wrote:

At 12/13/11 03:44 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/13/11 03:24 PM, Tateos wrote: There is absolutely no such thing that is either black or white ...

I believe in black and whites ...

By the same logic that there is only black and white, the statement could be made that you are either homeless or you are rich. You are either pure good or you are pure evil.

No. The word "logic" seems to be such a thrown word on these forums. This a a completely illogical conclusion that has nothing to do with black-and-white morality. Wealth is not a moral standing; and we are not discussing the nature of humanity - but its actions.

When they're in such a situation that would create hardship for both the mother and the child just to keep the child, it seems inhumane to not at least give them the option to get an abortion.

I agree that this might be a tough situation, but I would still say it is inhumane to kill the child.

Yet, you claim that anything less than black and white is hypocritical. I don't understand that. I don't think abortion is something that should be used irresponsibly, but I think it would be heinous in some situations to not allow it.

I never said that believing in grey areas is hypocritical (?). I'm simply saying that life should not be pushed to the side to make way for economics and/or emotions. The stealing of a life is, to me, the worst (simply defined) physical crime.
_______

At 12/13/11 08:56 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: First of all let's get some one here who has actually been pregnant first before we go in the specifics of whether or not abortion is right.

How is this a qualification?

Abortion is killing your own baby. You might think the fetus is just a little thing in a pregnant woman's womb, but it's still alive. It's growing and has cells. It's developing into a baby. But it's still a human. It's always human since the first cell emerged. I would actually state abortion as murder. And murder is illegal.

At 12/13/11 09:03 PM, Light wrote:

At 12/13/11 08:56 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: First of all let's get some one here who has actually been pregnant first before we go in the specifics of whether or not abortion is right.

As stupid as this may sound, I fail to see how a woman who's gotten pregnant before is somehow more qualified than we are to discuss whether an abortion is ethical or not.

Gee I don't know maybe because in order to abort something, you have to be pregnant first? On top of that the main reason for abortion is because everyone considers going through pregnancy as such a "burden" and "emotionally-wearing" I simply want to know if it really is as "bad as it is".

Because if the answer is not as bad as it is made out to be as some of you are putting it as, than what is the problem with simply giving the child up for adoption. Sides How would you feel if your mom aborted you, afterall 3-6 months before your birth, your life was considered "un-valuable" also.

And before any one (especially num-nuts over here who thinks he can simply shit on other's input/opinions without facing any sort of comeback) thinks I'm just some "ignorant" "god-fearing" idiot, keep in mind I'm relatively grey in this topic.

At 12/13/11 09:11 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/13/11 07:58 PM, Tateos wrote:

At 12/13/11 03:44 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/13/11 03:24 PM, Tateos wrote: There is absolutely no such thing that is either black or white ...

I believe in black and whites ...

By the same logic that there is only black and white, the statement could be made that you are either homeless or you are rich. You are either pure good or you are pure evil.

No. The word "logic" seems to be such a thrown word on these forums. This a a completely illogical conclusion that has nothing to do with black-and-white morality. Wealth is not a moral standing; and we are not discussing the nature of humanity - but its actions.

I was actually kidding there, but in retrospect that comes off as dead serious.

When they're in such a situation that would create hardship for both the mother and the child just to keep the child, it seems inhumane to not at least give them the option to get an abortion.

I agree that this might be a tough situation, but I would still say it is inhumane to kill the child.

Yet, you claim that anything less than black and white is hypocritical. I don't understand that. I don't think abortion is something that should be used irresponsibly, but I think it would be heinous in some situations to not allow it.

I never said that believing in grey areas is hypocritical (?).

You did in your first post.
"You must either permit abortion in every case, or forbid it in any case. To oppose abortion and say, "I would allow abortion in the case of rape," seems to go against your own philosophy. "
Or at least, it seems like that's what you were getting at.

I'm simply saying that life should not be pushed to the side to make way for economics and/or emotions. The stealing of a life is, to me, the worst (simply defined) physical crime.

Economics? I guess you're referring to the clinics, but the way you worded it made it seem like people would be getting abortions to make a profit. It would be to avoid a terrible situation for the mother and the child.
I'd consider getting an abortion before the child is a fetus not really taking a life. It has not experienced anything yet, it can't see, can't hear, can't recognize the mother's voice yet, can't move, hasn't even developed all it's organs, hasn't experienced any sort of thought, as far as I know. I understand where you're coming from, it's just that I feel like abortion before the fetal stage isn't really killing a human, but a human shell waiting to develop.

At 12/13/11 09:32 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote:

At 12/13/11 09:03 PM, Light wrote:

At 12/13/11 08:56 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: First of all let's get some one here who has actually been pregnant first before we go in the specifics of whether or not abortion is right.

As stupid as this may sound, I fail to see how a woman who's gotten pregnant before is somehow more qualified than we are to discuss whether an abortion is ethical or not.

Gee I don't know maybe because in order to abort something, you have to be pregnant first?

That still doesn't make women who've gotten pregnant more qualified than us to discuss the ethics of abortion.

On top of that the main reason for abortion is because everyone considers going through pregnancy as such a "burden" and "emotionally-wearing" I simply want to know if it really is as "bad as it is".

Or maybe it's because it'll financially ruin the mother and the father, consigning them and their child to poverty?

It is as bad as most women who've gotten abortions say it is.

Because if the answer is not as bad as it is made out to be as some of you are putting it as, than what is the problem with simply giving the child up for adoption.

The problem with abortion is this. There aren't enough parents out there who want to adopt kids as it is. If nearly every woman who didn't want their prospective children gave them up for adoption, we'd have millions of kids being cared for by state governments, kids who may never be adopted.

There are so many kids who never get adopted right now that it's ridiculous...

Furthermore, there's a risk of dying if the prospective mother decides to give birth to her child. There's really no need to take that risk, especially when so many women who get abortions physically can't handle giving birth because their bodies haven't fully matured yet. For these women, the risk is even greater.

Sides How would you feel if your mom aborted you, afterall 3-6 months before your birth, your life was considered "un-valuable" also.

I wouldn't really feel anything because I would never have known that I was aborted.

And before any one (especially num-nuts over here who thinks he can simply shit on other's input/opinions without facing any sort of comeback) thinks I'm just some "ignorant" "god-fearing" idiot, keep in mind I'm relatively grey in this topic.

I never said or thought that you were an "ignorant god-fearing idiot."

And I am certainly more than capable of facing a comeback in any debate.

At 12/13/11 09:49 PM, Tateos wrote:

At 12/13/11 09:11 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: I never said that believing in grey areas is hypocritical (?).

You did in your first post.
"You must either permit abortion in every case, or forbid it in any case. To oppose abortion and say, "I would allow abortion in the case of rape," seems to go against your own philosophy. "
Or at least, it seems like that's what you were getting at.

Oh, I meant that in opposing abortion, not supporting "grey areas". I didn't mean that this was hypocritical, simply that it conflicted with itself. The discussion diverted into black-and-whites shortly afterwards.

I'm simply saying that life should not be pushed to the side to make way for economics and/or emotions. The stealing of a life is, to me, the worst (simply defined) physical crime.

Economics? I guess you're referring to the clinics, but the way you worded it made it seem like people would be getting abortions to make a profit. It would be to avoid a terrible situation for the mother and the child.

Some argued for abortion using financial burdens, and I think this is disgusting - like putting a price of life. And, although I realize that the situation might be hard, ending the life is worse in my opinion. There must have been some confusion, sorry.

I'd like to just say the mortality rate for mothers in this country is literally .003 at the max, so it's not even a valid argument anymore.

Secondly, My question has still yet to remain answered.

Third, I will agree with you on that point on the adoption issue, however I sincerely believe that having things like abortion (atleast as it's handled currently) only simply only add to that problem. Many of these 'mothers' usually are teenagers who couldn't keep their legs crossed or were an idiot about having sex that they simply want to flush the thing so as to not deal with the responsibilities of parenthood.

The more we allow certain aspects of life to continue to be self-serving the more selfish I believe the generation becomes. The reason most of the kids won't be adopted is because People today only see a family as being genetic. The idea of a family formed through love, rather than a dick smacking a vagina and popping out a couple of babies, is lost. And part of over-coming selfishness is realizing the world doesnt revolve around you, and that takes growning up, which in turn happens through responsibility and acceptance of your actions.

By using abortions as a get-out-a-jail-free-card, we're depriving these 'mothers' from that. And honestly that is my main problem with abortion more than anything.

At 12/13/11 10:34 PM, Lumber-Jax12 wrote: I'd like to just say the mortality rate for mothers in this country is literally .003 at the max, so it's not even a valid argument anymore.

It's quite valid given that the women who seek abortions are often much more likely to die during childbirth anyway.

Secondly, My question has still yet to remain answered.

And which question is that?

Third, I will agree with you on that point on the adoption issue, however I sincerely believe that having things like abortion (atleast as it's handled currently) only simply only add to that problem. Many of these 'mothers' usually are teenagers who couldn't keep their legs crossed or were an idiot about having sex that they simply want to flush the thing so as to not deal with the responsibilities of parenthood.

Actually, many, if not most, women who get abortions do so because their birth control or other form of contraceptive failed.

And besides, it'd be foolish to try to "deal with the responsibilities of parenthood" when the teenagers in question are unlikely to have the resources to be good parents.

The more we allow certain aspects of life to continue to be self-serving the more selfish I believe the generation becomes. The reason most of the kids won't be adopted is because People today only see a family as being genetic. The idea of a family formed through love, rather than a dick smacking a vagina and popping out a couple of babies, is lost. And part of over-coming selfishness is realizing the world doesnt revolve around you, and that takes growning up, which in turn happens through responsibility and acceptance of your actions.

OK then.

By using abortions as a get-out-a-jail-free-card, we're depriving these 'mothers' from that. And honestly that is my main problem with abortion more than anything.

OK then.

At 12/13/11 09:18 PM, k6ka wrote: Abortion is killing your own baby. You might think the fetus is just a little thing in a pregnant woman's womb, but it's still alive. It's growing and has cells. It's developing into a baby. But it's still a human. It's always human since the first cell emerged. I would actually state abortion as murder. And murder is illegal.

Excuse me while I go wash my hands and create a mass genocide of living bacteria.

At 12/13/11 11:19 PM, Sensationalism wrote:

At 12/13/11 09:18 PM, k6ka wrote: It's growing and has cells. It's developing into a baby. But it's still a human. It's always human since the first cell emerged.

Excuse me while I go wash my hands and create a mass genocide of living bacteria.

Go ahead, I'll be sure to notify my science professors that you have found human bacteria.

if the baby can't survive outside of the mother I consider it a parasite (it is sapping the life from its mom, technically... in fact even when it comes out it continues to) XD

Alright seriously the terms used are simply disgusting at this point, The real way the thing is seen as a human life/non-human life is when the person gives a shit about it (totally the right attitude).

If aborted the baby agaisnt the mothers consent you'd all call me a murderer.

If I did with her consent you'd say I had the right to that.

See the problem? It's not the mother's life to be decided it's another person. (Unless it's rape thats really the only one I consider true)

I don't really support abortion at all, but if someone chooses to do so then it's their own shame, non of your business.
Personally I'm against it, but still it should be one possibility for special cases

I am not for abortion. I don't think it is a very good thing at all. But I'm more on the side that I don't believe we should tell people what women can and can't do with our bodies. People are allowed to smoke and even if you say the two have nothing in common, I do see similarities in terms of how it affects not just the one person. So I'm pro choice through that stance. If someone wants to do that to themselves and others, I am not one to tell them that it's wrong.

But while I'm on the subject, I do think that pro life advocates do go overboard with proving their point by shooting at abortion doctors. They're killing killers for the sake of giving life. Quite a contradiction.

At 12/13/11 07:26 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

At 12/13/11 07:16 PM, The-Last-Guardian wrote: Even in situations where rape is directly responsible, I continue to maintain this stand.

Very interesting! I am surprised someone again agrees with this unpopular, seemingly extreme philosophy. I believe you are the second or third to have this stance.

Murder is murder, that is fact. I do not believe that any organism is worth more than any other.

At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

So, I would not support abortion even in rape or incest. You must either permit abortion in every case, or forbid it in any case. To oppose abortion and say, "I would allow abortion in the case of rape," seems to go against your own philosophy. What role did the child play in the rape?

There is a famous example in philosophy to argue the right of a woman to have an abortion, which I think sums my stance up fairly well. The author of a paper asked draws a parallel case (albeit a weird one) by asking you to imagine a situation where you go to bed and the next day you wake up somewhere else, with your body systems connected to that of an ailing stranger. He needs to be connected to you for 9 months before he can live without being connected to you, and if you disconnect yourself from him he will absolutely die.

Clearly, choosing to unplug yourself from him condemns him to death. But does the strangers right to life exceed your right to your body? The argument boils down to that while a fetus/stranger has a right to life, they don't necessarily have a right to that which is needed to sustain life. In essence their right to your body does not overpower your right to your body, so it is permissible for you to have an abortion.

Urghh, this topic was created for the sole intent of causing a massive flamewar.

let's fuel the fucking fire

If a woman doesn't want the baby, it infringes on both of the twos rights if you say either. Keep the baby, and live with it/put up for adoption (prevents the woman from working, having general good health). And if you give her the chance to abort the baby, it infringes on it's rights, despite the fact of how unborn it might be. It had potential to live, but now it's dead.
I'd imagine that 9months of having your stomach grow would not be a pleasant experience amongst other things, but to force a person to sit through 9 months of that shit just to bring the baby into a family that probably doesn't want it, or just to get rid of it. Seems like an unncessary endeavor and a risk on the woman's safety (No, I do not know stats on how many women die during childbirth, but theres always the possibility).
When it comes down to it, each way is infringing on someone's rights, but the main one is that of the baby, which quite frankly, as a result of an abortion, ends up dead.
If abortion became illegal, I'd think the amount of self-abortions or shady-as-fuck abortion clinics would probably rise, increasing the risk of harm to all pregnant women who are trying to get an abortion.
Really, when it comes down to it, theres no way to have an opinion without being challenged.
Am I against abortion? Hard to say, either side would have negative effects on a community as a whole. Even though a woman should have the say what happens over her body, an unborn baby should still be considered in the matter.

At 12/14/11 01:14 AM, Emarius wrote: Clearly, choosing to unplug yourself from him condemns him to death. But does the strangers right to life exceed your right to your body? The argument boils down to that while a fetus/stranger has a right to life, they don't necessarily have a right to that which is needed to sustain life. In essence their right to your body does not overpower your right to your body, so it is permissible for you to have an abortion.

This is a fantastic point. You shouldn't have to host anything you don't want to.
I'm typing more because I don't want to delete quoted text.

At 12/14/11 01:13 AM, The-Last-Guardian wrote:

At 12/13/11 07:26 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:

.

Murder is murder, that is fact. I do not believe that any organism is worth more than any other.

Damn, try telling your family that.

always nice to see a stupid kid oppose their own rights

When my mother was abducted by the Communists, she was with child, but the Communists, they put an end to that! So, on this issue there is no debate! And no intelligent person can think differently

True story, I knew a girl, who had unprotected sex with her bf she lived with all the time, for what reason I dunno. Shockingly, she got pregnant. When she told her bf, he flipped and said if you do not abort I will kick you out of my house (she was freeloading off of him). So he drove her ass upstate for 3 hours to get one, and there you go.

At 12/14/11 12:53 AM, ZeldaFreak701 wrote: But while I'm on the subject, I do think that pro life advocates do go overboard with proving their point by shooting at abortion doctors. They're killing killers for the sake of giving life. Quite a contradiction.

Yes, there are certainly radicals on both ends just as in any controversial issue.
_______

At 12/14/11 01:14 AM, Emarius wrote:

At 12/13/11 02:40 PM, EmmaVolt wrote: So, I would not support abortion even in rape or incest.

[Hypothetical]
Clearly, choosing to unplug yourself from him condemns him to death. But does the strangers right to life exceed your right to your body? The argument boils down to that while a fetus/stranger has a right to life, they don't necessarily have a right to that which is needed to sustain life. In essence their right to your body does not overpower your right to your body, so it is permissible for you to have an abortion.

I have heard something like this analogy in my own philosophy class; and, I would still say their life is your responsibility because you are not letting the other die, you are killing by disconnecting yourself. Unless the connection itself is killing or will kill you, you should not disconnect yourself despite the dire situation. Based on the premise, the situation is temporary. This would be different if you were told that by not connecting, he would die - in this circumstance, you are not responsible because the situation did not have you as a "reactant". Of course, in real life, I doubt I would stand by my morals and stay connected (in this hypothetical, not with a baby); call me a hypocrite.

However, if there were an appropriate way to keep the fetus alive after removal from the mother, I would permit this in rape scenarios (not abortion). I would also argue with the claim that their right to life does not overpower your right to your body. Life is prioritized over all rights.
_______

At 12/14/11 01:56 AM, MrMeD wrote: Urghh, this topic was created for the sole intent of causing a massive flamewar.

let's fuel the fucking fire

It most certainly was not. If I simply wanted a yelling fight, I would have incorporated religion when the opportunity was prime - three pages ago.

If a woman doesn't want the baby, it infringes on both of the twos rights if you say either. It had potential to live, but now it's dead.

Correct. I am not saying the mother's rights are not infringed (in rape scenarios exclusively), I am suggesting that the right to life is significantly more important and should be prioritized over the mother's "lesser rights". This is why I say that passive abortion would be debatable if the mother's life was in jeopardy - but, this scenario must be taken at a case-by-case basis and not by absolutes, considering there are many medical variables that come into play from female to female.

(No, I do not know stats on how many women die during childbirth, but theres always the possibility).

Around 12 per 100,000 (.00012 in 1 or .012% of cases). I know understand you are suggesting, but it is a poor argument.

When it comes down to it, each way is infringing on someone's rights, but the main one is that of the baby, which quite frankly, as a result of an abortion, ends up dead.

Sorry, are you saying that because the baby's rights are more important, it should be aborted? I'm not sure I read this correctly.