I'm just wondering, how do Newgrounders feel about the touchy subject of abortion? Please discuss.

No, I do not support it, but I also do not believe that the state has a right to control a woman's body. It is a difficult decision that only she has a say in.

my colleagues call me The Abortionator

At 10/5/15 02:04 PM, DOOKIEMALLO wrote: I'm just wondering, how do Newgrounders feel about the touchy subject of abortion? Please discuss.

I do not support it unless the mother will die in labor.

Yes, I don't want a child.

I think we should think of it like they did before it became a social issue in the 20s, before quickening it's just, but we do need to evolve a bit as a society in our thought that before that point someone should take on their unfortunate timing/irresponsibility in the form of carrying the child to term. That kid is no better shriveled in a tray than thrust into a world unprepared to house them.

I am absolutely pro-abortion.
The less of these little bastards, the better.

Only as a choice.

Kinda sorta, y'know?
It's hard to decide because all of the little bastards in my life had the good fortune of being born.
Yet before them I was all for it because nobody, most of all adolescents, don't need children in their lives.
At least not until your like, old.

i guess if the woman was cool with it then im cool

At 10/5/15 02:04 PM, DOOKIEMALLO wrote: I'm just wondering, how do Newgrounders feel about the touchy subject of abortion? Please discuss.

Have you ever seen that movie What Women Want. Me neither.

It all depends on the situation. For example, if the mother is going to die if the baby is not aborted, then yes.

Sure. Abort babies all day. It doesn't really matter when the baby's brain hasn't even formed yet.

Nobody thinks twice about killing a tape worm or other parasite, and that's basically what pregnancy is until closer to birth.

I do not support abortion. It is brutal and disgusting. However if that's what a woman wants to do, I hope she is prepared for the consequences. What sickens me are the feminists who flaunt their abortions on social media. It is and always will be a controversial subject. I should point out where I do really do not support abortion is where in non-rape cases women will have abortions because they have become inconvenienced because they just couldn't stop from having sex. Just don't do it then if you don't want a baby.

Nope.

Can't we just cut out the middle man out and throw javelins at people's crotches?

Dead baby comedy aside, I can't say that I support abortion, but I do feel that the option should be available. I'd rather the abortion be done by a trained professional then someone going to a 'back alley doctor'. Do we really want to go back to the days before Roe versus Wade?

At 10/5/15 11:09 PM, mysticvortex13 wrote: absolutely. if a sapient entity is in agonizing discomfort, they have the right to remove the non-sapient source of that agonizing discomfort from existence.

Preborn humans are still members of Homo Sapiens and are therefore sapient from conception.

a collection of biomass cannot think on any more advanced a level than a primal animal if it can think at all.

There's actually a lot of research that shows preborn humans can finish developing basic cognitive functions as early as 7 weeks after fertilization.

that bacon you've been eating was once a pig.

Apples to oranges comparison.

that embryo that woman chose to abort never had the ability to think any more advanced than that pig.

That is unsubstantiated, politically-biased speculation that is inconsistent with modern scientific findings.

there's no use musing over what could have been. you don't know for sure whether that embryo would have made it full-term anyway.

Modern medical science has made it possible to eliminate nearly all doubt about the outcome of the vast majority of pregnancies. Also, arguing in favor of abortion based on the uncertainty of a pregnancy is rather absurd. Even if the outcome of the pregnancy is uncertain, an abortion guarantees that it will fail.

it's entirely possible it would have miscarriaged and wound up with the same exact result, albeit with an even longer duration in which the woman feels agonizing discomfort.

It's entirely possible that an asteroid could strike your home and reduce you to ashes, too.

plus.. if it had survived, then what? would you have all the taxpayers of the world pay to keep a child nobody wants alive?

What do you mean by "nobody?" You should speak for yourself. There are plenty of people out there eager to adopt children. The whole "all the taxpayers of the world will have to pay for the child" argument is also a very poor one, as you're basically arguing that our money is more important than a human life. That's selfish and downright wrong.

simple fact of the matter is, abstinence is unworkable. sex is an instinct. not something that can be overcome in favor of rationality without artificially augmenting the brain.

More unsubstantiated speculation. Plenty of people abstain from sex without issues. There's also those who choose not to abstain, but do so responsibly by practicing safe sex.

if it were that easy, we wouldn't have sexually transmitted diseases either.

Sexually transmitted diseases have propagated largely due to the fact that a lot of irresponsible people do not practice safe sex. There's also the fact that safe sex in general is a relatively new concept (relative to the age of mankind) that only started gaining momentum in the last century.

additionally, contraception isnt foolproof. and most forms of it kill the mood to boot.

Studies have shown that most modern, non-abortive contraception methods have a success rate of over 99%, and have little to no impact on "the mood." There's also permanent, non-abortive methods such as the vasectomy and laparoscopy, which have a 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy.

so there's no helping that in the end, people will choose the easiest path and unfortunately, mistakes will be conceived.

I've pointed it out before, but you have a severe case of victim mentality with this whole business of "there's no helping it." There's no helping anything with you. In your mind, everything is the world's fault and you're not the slightest bit responsible for anything. The reality is that people who make mistakes should and will suffer the consequences of those mistakes. That is a universal law known as "cause and effect."

just let them take the easy option for all of us. let them opt out of childbirth too.

You can opt out of childbirth by practicing safe sex. If you're too stupid/irresponsible to practice safe sex, you should be sterilized.

TL;DR: Pretty much none of what you wrote has any actual scientific basis, and you are, as usual, totally wrong.

uh-huh. i've always been a pro-abortion but i'm aware it's still not a nice thing to always do. contraceptives exist to get you away from these unwanted pregnancies.

Abortion for women that have been raped and fall pregnant I fully support. For girls/woman that were too stupid to get their man to put a cap on it I don't support. If they don't want the child there a many loving families that would love to adopt a child and that should be their only option. Not killing an unborn child because it was a "mistake".

At 10/6/15 01:36 AM, mysticvortex13 wrote: sapient as in capable of making rational decisions, not sapient as in reminiscent of human.

Ah ok, so basically any young child or mentally ill person is fair game, then? I mean, they can't make rational decisions. Come to think of it, I don't think you can either. Should we be allowed to abort you?

what, pray tell, does this research suggest that these "cognitive functions" consist of?

You can read about it in various biology/embryology books. A few books I'd personally recommend:

Biology: Investigating Life on Earth. By Vernon L. Avila.
The First Nine Months of Life. By Geraldine Lux Flanagan.
Gray's Anatomy: The Anatomical Basis of Medicine and Surgery. Churchill Livingstone

i'm particularly interested in things that cant be found in the brains of these other animals like pigs and monkeys. because there's also actually a lot of research to show that a properly trained adult animal can do most things adult humans can, which in turn suggests that they're very similar even in their earlier stages.

So basically your argument is that any human being with brain capacity equal or lower to a pig or monkey should not have basic human rights, such as the right to live?

you think i'm a taxpayer merely because i made such an argument?

No, I don't think you're a taxpayer. I think you're likely a hypocrite who lives off taxpayer money and then makes forum posts complaining about unwanted children costing the taxpayers too much money so that they're better off just being aborted.

i'm a left wing person. you cant expect me to intuitively understand the rationale you have behind your beliefs.

If you're a "left wing person" then I can't expect you to understand much of anything.

as such, when i see a pro-republican position argument, i see something guided by reactionary religious and monetary beliefs and not human rights at all.

I'm not religious and don't make any profit from being pro-life. My views are rooted firmly in science, and the belief that all human beings deserve basic human rights.

why else would they tend to push bill after bill and restrict their own civilian freedoms but for money and religion? if not for their pro-gun and anti-tax positions, i'd swear it was they and not the democrats who were in favor of centralized government...

i'm trying to wean people off of that. if you were never on that proverbial kool-aid, i apologize... nonetheless, it's amazing how oblivious you can be to your own party.

How do you even know what my party is? Have I claimed to be part of a political party?

unsubstantiated? the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. it has always been so. you're the one who attacked my beliefs. you made the assertions that i was wrong to believe what i believe.

You're entitled to believe whatever you want, but the fact that there are people who have no difficulty abstaining from sex, and the fact that there are those who do not abstain but only practice safe sex, is, nonetheless, a fact, regardless of what you believe.

i claim nothing of mine to be irrefutable truth apart from what i observe for myself. everything else is but my imagination extrapolating the data gathered from my real life observations to a potential future event.

Yet you make statements like "so there's no helping that in the end, people will choose the easiest path and unfortunately, mistakes will be conceived."

however certain i may sound in my word choice, your guess about future would be as good as mine if not for the simple matter of bias.

i hold to each their own. relativism is my school of thought. in addition to hedonism and the part of consequentialism that says "the end justifies the means".

my right and your right are different. law wants to change that. to force all of humanity into a single banner. no choice in the matter. that's why i consider it a bad thing. you don't like abortion, dont date someone who insists on an abortion if they were to ever have sex and get pregnant.

if enough people like you are out there, popular opinion will reflect that in such a form and the pro-abortionists will find themselves unable to find partners... if not, it's you who will live a loveless life.

no need for the police to get involved.

on the other hand, condoms are abysmal. http://www.onlymyhealth.com/reasons-condom-failure-1315563250

I've always worn a condom every time I've had sex, and I've yet to catch an STD or get anyone pregnant.

as to my argument, it doesnt need substantiating. it's purely philosophical as with everything i say.

and rightly so. moral values cant be measured as data. they cant be tested nor proven.

my modus operandi is to convince people with nothing but these:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhoopiEpiphanySpeech

any scientific evidence i issue forth is ultimately not essential to my plans. it's just there to bolster my point which is purely logic-based.

just substitute the knowledge you've been using for pure logic and make your opinions take the center stage... tossing halfassed research documents my way if you absolutely must use additional forms of science along with your philosophy.

that's the easiest way to hold a debate with me besides not bothering, which you're certainly free to do if so inclined.

you're a sapient human being and i'd hate to infringe upon your rights.

I would take the time to individually pick apart all of your arguments one by one, but frankly, I don't see any point as it's not going to change anything. You're clearly going to continue believing whatever you believe, and you have a habit of always trying to get the last word in, so I'll just leave it at that. You're still wrong.

At 10/6/15 02:01 AM, MMHM wrote: Oh dear someone struck a nerve. This is a lazy fall back argument for the"pro life" crowd. Both the mentally ill person, and mystic have rights, under the law. The argument is just as idiotic as saying a cow should have rights because it's sentient.

So what then, is the difference between a person in and outside of the womb at the same stage of development, other than the fact that one is in the womb?

At 10/6/15 02:06 AM, MMHM wrote: You realize you can't abort a child once it's fully developed right? There's a cut off .

Wrong.

Also, define "fully developed."

A preborn child at 24 weeks after fertilization has an 80% chance of survival if born prematurely. In most states, it's still legal to abort a child at this stage of development. What is the difference between a child in the womb at 24 weeks after fertilization, and one outside of the womb, other than the fact that one is still in the womb?

At 10/6/15 02:11 AM, DJ-Ri wrote:

At 10/6/15 02:06 AM, MMHM wrote: You realize you can't abort a child once it's fully developed right? There's a cut off .

Wrong.

Also, define "fully developed."

A preborn child at 24 weeks after fertilization has an 80% chance of survival if born prematurely. In most states, it's still legal to abort a child at this stage of development. What is the difference between a child in the womb at 24 weeks after fertilization, and one outside of the womb, other than the fact that one is still in the womb?

Abortions at that later state in development are typically performed because the child has been found to have developmental problems (Down's Syndrome really sucks, as does Epidermolysis bullosa) or when the immediate termination of the pregancy is the only way to save the life of the mother. The right to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy is left to the mother under the expert advisement of her doctor because it is a person's right to have complete control over her own body.

It's pretty easy to understand why the Republicans are complete fucking morons about this issue.

At 10/6/15 02:28 AM, MMHM wrote: So you do have a cut off of 24 weeks?

Only in some states, and only if certain conditions are met. In many states, it is still legal to abort after 24 weeks, either unconditionally or depending on certain circumstances.

This is the line in the sand (probably not the right phrase but I'm tired) we draw when we make a law. I'm sure most parents don't want their sixteen year old kids having sex either, but that's the arbitrary line we've established.

The line I draw is at conception. As for 16 year olds having sex, that's what (non-abortive) contraception is for.

At 10/6/15 02:29 AM, Profanity wrote: Abortions at that later state in development are typically performed because the child has been found to have developmental problems (Down's Syndrome really sucks, as does Epidermolysis bullosa) or when the immediate termination of the pregancy is the only way to save the life of the mother.

Yeah. Down's Syndrome does suck. You know what sucks even worse than Down's Syndrome? Getting killed for having a condition you have no control over.

There's some validity to arguing in favor of abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother, but any other argument is invalid on the grounds that it's taking a human life to spare another person of an inconvenience they could otherwise live with and is usually their fault in the first place.

The right to decide whether or not to terminate the pregnancy is left to the mother under the expert advisement of her doctor because it is a person's right to have complete control over her own body.

Sure. Too bad the preborn child isn't actually part of their body.

It's pretty easy to understand why the Republicans are complete fucking morons about this issue.

I think it's the Democrats who are the morons.

At 10/6/15 02:35 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: Yeah. Down's Syndrome does suck. You know what sucks even worse than Down's Syndrome? Getting killed for having a condition you have no control over.

No, never being born because you would otherwise have developed into a person with Down's Syndrome doesn't suck. It's actually awesome, because you can then be born with a different set of chromosomes instead of having your life ruined because a bunch of selfish Republicans wanted to control your parents' decisions.

I guess I shouldn't take your word for it. Didn't you let 10-500 million of your siblings die? I'm 15% sure you cannibalized your twin in the womb.

There's some validity to arguing in favor of abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother, but any other argument is invalid on the grounds that it's taking a human life to spare another person of an inconvenience they could otherwise live with and is usually their fault in the first place.

Inconvenience. Ahaha. Christ. Hoo boy. A person who is at the time unfit to raise a child should not be forced to bring that child to term because it makes you feel uneasy that we take intelligent control over our reproductive capacity. Minimizing the issue doesn't change this.

Sure. Too bad the preborn child isn't actually part of their body.
I think it's the Democrats who are the morons.

Being a Republican is correlated with being less educated on a state level and more religious on Pew statistics, so: no. Unless being a moron now means being more educated and actually understanding the world around you?

At 10/6/15 03:14 AM, Profanity wrote: No, never being born because you would otherwise have developed into a person with Down's Syndrome doesn't suck.

A person can still be killed before they're born. A child at 24 weeks development is still a living human being. Just because they are inside the womb and haven't been born yet doesn't change that.

It's actually awesome, because you can then be born with a different set of chromosomes instead of having your life ruined because a bunch of selfish Republicans wanted to control your parents' decisions.

Lol, so you think if you kill someone they'll just be re-born as a different person?

I guess I shouldn't take your word for it. Didn't you let 10-500 million of your siblings die? I'm 15% sure you cannibalized your twin in the womb.

What in the actual fuck is that supposed to mean? Is this some kind of reference to sperm competition? Plain stupid if it is, since a sperm and fertilized egg are two very different things.

Inconvenience. Ahaha. Christ. Hoo boy. A person who is at the time unfit to raise a child should not be forced to bring that child to term because it makes you feel uneasy that we take intelligent control over our reproductive capacity. Minimizing the issue doesn't change this.

Who says they have to raise the child? Adoption is still a thing, you know.

Being a Republican is correlated with being less educated on a state level and more religious on Pew statistics, so: no. Unless being a moron now means being more educated and actually understanding the world around you?

You'd have to be a moron to base someone's intelligence exclusively on their political affiliation. That being said, why do you keep bringing up Republicans as if I'm supposed to care if you think they're morons or not?

At 10/6/15 03:22 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: A person can still be killed before they're born. A child at 24 weeks development is still a living human being. Just because they are inside the womb and haven't been born yet doesn't change that.

Good thing they're not children at 23 weeks 6 days, eh? Let's just make sure we abort em nice and good before the stroke of midnight.

Lol, so you think if you kill someone they'll just be re-born as a different person?

Terminating a pregnancy isn't killing a person, it's stopping a person from existing before they're alive. You're very fortunate to have made it this far in ilfe despite needing to be given so much help.

Good thing we let Doctors and Parents make private decisions without having to be tied down by red tape written by people representing America's uneducated religious population. That would be ridiculous, if we did tie them down with all that red tape, wouldn't it? It's like asking parents who are making the most difficult decisions they have ever faced to sit down and really think hard about how nice it would be if they carried their Down's Syndrome child to term and then spent millions of dollars caring for it for the rest of their lives before the child was thrust out into a harsh and uncaring reality which doesn't allocate enough funds in the Healthcare industry to even care for people with those sorts of completely debilitating disabiities!

What in the actual fuck is that supposed to mean? Is this some kind of reference to sperm competition? Plain stupid if it is, since a sperm and fertilized egg are two very different things.

It means that you're a murderer and a cannibal, obviously. I hope you weren't so evil that you ate your twin at any stage in development when the twin would have been viable outside the womb. I mean, shouldn't you be charged with murder and desecration of a human corpse?

Good thing this entire political movement which is attempting to roll back the progress America has made fighting its way out of the Puritanical dark ages of its youth isn't like--oh shit I don't know--being bankrolled by people who believe in fucking Angels and Devils coming down from clouds to influence the world.

Who says they have to raise the child? Adoption is still a thing, you know.

Let's just overload the desperate-for-funding over-worked adoption system with even more babies who can't be cared for by their parents! Yeah! Let's just do it. Money, space, human resources, and reality aren't any issue as long as you believe in yourself!

You'd have to be a moron to base someone's intelligence exclusively on their political affiliation. That being said, why do you keep bringing up Republicans as if I'm supposed to care if you think they're morons or not?

I mean, this is literally the case. The being a member of the Republican party is statistically correlated with being uneducated and religious.

At 10/6/15 03:46 AM, Profanity wrote: Good thing they're not children at 23 weeks 6 days, eh? Let's just make sure we abort em nice and good before the stroke of midnight.

A preborn human is a preborn human at any state of gestation.

Terminating a pregnancy isn't killing a person, it's stopping a person from existing before they're alive. You're very fortunate to have made it this far in ilfe despite needing to be given so much help.

I like how you were careful and used the term "person" instead of "human," since personhood is an abstract political concept with no real scientific basis, whereas any biologist can tell you that the preborn human is, indeed, a living human being.

Good thing we let Doctors and Parents make private decisions without having to be tied down by red tape written by people representing America's uneducated religious population.

Private decisions influenced by pro-abortion propaganda circulated by paid Planned Parenthood lobbyists seeking to bolster the highly profitable abortion industry and typical, mouth-foaming liberal lunatics.

That would be ridiculous, if we did tie them down with all that red tape, wouldn't it? It's like asking parents who are making the most difficult decisions they have ever faced to sit down and really think hard about how nice it would be if they carried their Down's Syndrome child to term and then spent millions of dollars caring for it for the rest of their lives before the child was thrust out into a harsh and uncaring reality which doesn't allocate enough funds in the Healthcare industry to even care for people with those sorts of completely debilitating disabiities!

Millions of dollars? Lmao. Since when does it cost millions to care for a child with Down's Syndrome? Nice exaggeration there, bud. Also, again, who's saying that they have to take care of the child? Adoption is still a perfectly acceptable alternative.

And even if it did cost that much money to care for such a child (which it most certainly doesn't, but just for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that it does) your argument is incredibly poor in that you're weighing the value of money against the value of a human being's life.

It means that you're a murderer and a cannibal, obviously. I hope you weren't so evil that you ate your twin at any stage in development when the twin would have been viable outside the womb. I mean, shouldn't you be charged with murder and desecration of a human corpse?

Wow, what an intelligent response! You liberals just never cease to amaze me with your incredible debating skills. Losing an argument? Call your opponent a murderer and a cannibal. Problem solved!

Good thing this entire political movement which is attempting to roll back the progress America has made fighting its way out of the Puritanical dark ages of its youth isn't like--oh shit I don't know--being bankrolled by people who believe in fucking Angels and Devils coming down from clouds to influence the world.

Good thing the majority of the country's population still think liberals are crazy thanks to people like you posting this insane drivel on the internet every day.

Seriously, dude, your ideal world is a world where people eat insects, fish turds and genetically modified seaweed, are prohibited from owning firearms, hunting, fishing or playing football, and are policed by autonomous drones that select and fire upon targets at their own discretion. Nobody besides a marginal group of crazies is ever going to take you seriously, and you're only hurting your cause even more every time you post this nonsense on the web.

Let's just overload the desperate-for-funding over-worked adoption system with even more babies who can't be cared for by their parents! Yeah! Let's just do it. Money, space, human resources, and reality aren't any issue as long as you believe in yourself!

There are millions of people who are desperate to adopt children. There are many who are unable to have children of their own and would love nothing more than the chance to adopt a child.

And once again, you're arguing in favor of abortion on the basis of funding, placing more value on money than human life.

I mean, this is literally the case. The being a member of the Republican party is statistically correlated with being uneducated and religious.

And I'm supposed to care, why?

Abortion should be discouraged, however the option should always be with the pregnant mother-to-be. Since it's impossible to fully understand all scenarios and since the pregnant mother-to-be is the only one who will know her particular situation best, this is a lesser of two evils.

At 10/5/15 11:42 PM, DJ-Ri wrote: More unsubstantiated speculation. Plenty of people abstain from sex without issues. There's also those who choose not to abstain, but do so responsibly by practicing safe sex.

People who abstain from sex for long periods of time sometimes develop societally unacceptable sexual deviancies. See the Catholic priesthood scandals.

There's also permanent, non-abortive methods such as the vasectomy and laparoscopy, which have a 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy.

Vasectomies don't have 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy. I'm unsure what you mean by laparoscopy -- it appears to be a general term for an entire class of surgeries -- but I doubt whatever you had in mind has 100% success rate in preventing pregnancy either.

At 10/6/15 01:55 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: If you're a "left wing person" then I can't expect you to understand much of anything.

I realize the argument was heated between you and mysticvortex when you said this, but I hope you can see how biased this assertion is.

I've always worn a condom every time I've had sex, and I've yet to catch an STD or get anyone pregnant.

And if you do get an STD, just go to a doctor. They might be able to cure it. Just depends on what it is. Practice safe sex and, if you get something anyway, doctor visit.

At 10/6/15 02:35 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: There's some validity to arguing in favor of abortion when necessary to save the life of the mother, but any other argument is invalid on the grounds that it's taking a human life to spare another person of an inconvenience they could otherwise live with and is usually their fault in the first place.

So let's say there's some mad rapist going around getting everyone pregnant. And let's say these pregnancies don't endanger the lives of the mothers but they still can greatly inconvenience everyone, and especially those who already work multiple jobs and find it difficult to put food on the table as-is. So, arguing the mothers should have a choice in that matter is invalid? I think you need to acknowledge there can be other legitimate issues beyond simply if the mother would die during childbirth. Since it's impossible to know everyone's life situation, the lesser of two evils would say to allow the woman to decide.

Yes, optimally there would be no abortions, and every pregnancy would be wanted, and the children could easily be cared for and live amazing lives, but we don't live in an optimal world. We live in a sick, twisted world. And we have to deal with that and sometimes the best you can do is choosing between least-bad choices.

I think it's the Democrats who are the morons.

Now now. Both hardline Republicans AND hardline Democrats are morons. But unfortunately the way the US government works it seems only one from those two parties ever make it into the Presidency.

At 10/6/15 04:09 AM, DJ-Ri wrote: You liberals just never cease to amaze me with your incredible debating skills.

Again, you're having a heated argument with someone, but you're letting your emotions get to you and maligning all liberals in the process. That's a bias. It really doesn't help your case to use "liberal" like it's a "bad word" as that tactic only works with hard-right-wingers who already think of "liberal" as a "bad word". Your options are liberty or tyranny. That Democrats call themselves liberal when they're really not is no reason to malign liberals. Malign Democrats for not being what they claim to be, if you wish. That much at least would be valid.

If someone was to ask me if I think they should get an abortion I would most likely tell them no. That said, the option should be with the mother for all those exceptional cases no one except her can even hope to comprehend. They're ugly. They're dirty. I don't like the concept. But I acknowledge I just don't know everyone's life situations. I therefore leave the keys in their hands rather than forcing their hand on any matter. If they make a bad choice, they have to live with it.

I'm pro-choice. Also I believe that it is not my choice to make.