Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Now, I will give you the point that some foetuses may have brainwaives and a fuctioning heart, but then again, so do ALL mice, ALL ants, ALL termites, ALL lizards, and ALL killer bees, and it's definitely not a crime to kill any of those. What did they ever do to you? They're completely innocent, it's morally repugnant to even consider harming them, but we as a society do it anyway. Why? Because they, in and of themselves, take from us while giving us no immediate benefeit.

Killer bees are innocent???? People kill these things because they can harm us. Also, the thought of considering a human baby a parasite is completely degrading to humanity. The baby is not there because it wants to hurt you. The baby is there because you chose to have sex knowing that you had the chance to create a living human being with a heart and a brain and a soul. I'm not a religeous fanatic but calling a human baby a parasite disgusts me. If someone doesn't want to take the risk of having to take care of a baby, they shouldn't have sex in the first place. I can understand why a woman that was raped would want to have an abortion, but like someone said earlier, that just makes two victims instead of one. I don't beleive that having an abortion is evil, but I do consider it immoral and I can't imagine the thought of creating a baby and then allowing a doctor to kill it before it even has a chance to see the world.

What do you mean "immoral but not evil?"

evil to me is like satanistic... like genocide or cold blooded murder
immoral is something that I don't beleive is right, but I wouldn't judge someone about it...
I am pro-choice but I'm just expressing my opinion on how I personally feel about abortion

abortion is wrong under any circumstance.

an unborn child's sentiency does not matter because it's still the same baby after it achieves sentiency.

an unborn child is not a parasite. sure it is completely dependant of the mother for food, warmth, and the like, but a parisite isn't concieved by the mother. that's what's different. any other creature is a foreign entity, an unborn child is not.

the fact that it contributes nothing to society is irrelevant. what about self sufficient people who have nothing to do with the outside world? if they do not go outside of their property bourders, and do not use electricity, tv, etc. and do not vote or anything, they do not contribute to society. does that mean that it's ok to murder them too? no!

abortion because of a protection failure is the worst reason to have an abortion. it would still be the same baby if you wanted to have it in the first place, the only difference is the outside circumstance.

abortion because of rape is also wrong. it's not the baby's fault. there are adoption agencies if you don't want to keep the child, so the only reason to murder the child because of rape is because the woman doesn't want to go through giving birth.

abortion for the baby's sake is a huge contradiction. if you have an abortion because you think that you can't offer the child a good life, or having it will ruin your's, you're contradicting yourself. taking the baby's life because you don't think it can have a good one is wrong. a life is better than no life at all. you're not even giving it a chance to make his life better for himself.

this to all of you pro-life-ers out there that are against abortion but still think it's the woman's right to choose, crawl back to the sea like the spineless jellyfish you are. if you truely believe something, defend it. otherwise you as pro-abortion as anyone.

Quote: sure it is completely dependant of the mother for food, warmth, and the like

That is the exact biological definition of parasite.

Am I the only one who's noticed so far that most of the ProLife supporters are men? I mean it may just be me, but considering us guys don't have to carry the thing, should we even have a right to decide. I don't know if it's concievable, but I'm pretty sure this is one issure the women should vote on their own.

And that's coming from a guy, so no, it's not some feminazi going overboard or anything. I mean if babies grew in a man's balls, I would say keep women out of the vote, too.

Oh and by the way...

At 1/2/03 07:51 PM, ISleepWithAPinkBunny wrote: The baby is not there because it wants to hurt you. The baby is there because you chose to have sex knowing that you had the chance to create a living human being with a heart and a brain and a soul

First off, souls are debatable dependant on religion... As for the rest of it...

Yeah, and asian liver fluke isn't in your digestive system because it WANTS to hurt you, it's there because you chose to eat raw fish, knowing you had the chance to eat one with the cysts, causing a living being as well.

...i shouldn't have hit "send" so early. I forgot to ask...does that mean you should let the liver fluke live in you being a parasite? Because you knew you could have gotten one, and still did the action that gave it to you?

At 1/2/03 10:39 PM, Scaletail wrote: ...i shouldn't have hit "send" so early. I forgot to ask...does that mean you should let the liver fluke live in you being a parasite? Because you knew you could have gotten one, and still did the action that gave it to you?

no. liver fluke is a foreign entity. an unborn baby is not a pariste.

At 1/2/03 10:28 PM, Nevah73 wrote: Quote: sure it is completely dependant of the mother for food, warmth, and the like

That is the exact biological definition of parasite.

you either completely missed my point or you're an idiot. a parisite isn't concieved by the mother. an unborn child is not a foreign entity.

I think someone's just mad I made a good analogy he can't counter. Besides, I reiterate, it's not like yours or my opinion matter anyway. We're not the gender that pops the kids out. Not really our decision in the end. And, yes, it is a decision. Whether its legal or not, some women will just get rid of them one way or another. Be it crossing the border, or illegal shops in their seedy neighborhoods, or the old coathanger. Some women just don't want nine months of physical hell that mutates their body, never to be the same again. (Yes, it can come damn close, but there's some changes that are pemanant, subtle as they are) Regardless of the reason WHY they're pregnant, you can try as hard as you want, but keeping abortion illegal is about as futile as the war on drugs.

the gender of a person shouldn't matter in regards to their stndpoint on abortion. pro-abortionists' and pro-life opinions are just as valid regardless of gender.

Point well taken. Yes, opinions are valid...some more valid than others, but you're right all have some validity to them.

See, even I can admit when I'm wrong...

Anyway, seriously though, with no animosity, why would you be for something you know, if implimented would be disasterous to society. Now even though I'm pro choice, I'm in agreement the people who use abortion as a birth control are fucking dumbasses... We made birth control pills, condoms, diphragms, sponges, norplants, depo-provera, calendar based sex patterns, and even the pull out method (suprisingly 79% effective even without other methods...but you still have that 21% chance of knocking her up). All these things exist for a REASON, yet people still screw up. Honestly, if it were legal I'd say, yeah keep abortion legal but if you get ONE you get your tubes tied. Heh, won't make that mistake again, will you dumbass? OK that's a little extremist, but you get what I'm saying.

But without thinking about religion, think about it from a sociological point of view. Your Pro Life idealism is about as realistic as marxist communism. Great idea, but never gonna happen, cause people aren't that willing to think above themselves, and frankly, accidents do happen.

As for not having sex then...have you ever been in a really LONG relationship with someone? Try it. Then try NOT having sex while you're in it. You go ahead and make your own definition of long, its different for everyone, but not everyone wants children, but eventually, everyone wants sex. Eventually. Be it a month or six years with someone.

At 1/3/03 01:10 AM, Scaletail wrote: why would you be for something you know, if implimented would be disasterous to society.

it would not be disasterous to society in any way.

As for not having sex then...have you ever been in a really LONG relationship with someone? Try it. Then try NOT having sex while you're in it. You go ahead and make your own definition of long, its different for everyone, but not everyone wants children, but eventually, everyone wants sex. Eventually. Be it a month or six years with someone.

i was in a relationship for 10 months and i didn't have sex with her. besides it's the person's fault for having sex. you can't just have sex and blame it on some primal instinct.

"Is it right to kill a human? No. Then abortion is wrong? No, a foetus does not have the defining characteristic that makes humans better than animals(and thus gives them moral rights). And what is that characteristic? Sentiency."

wrong. that quality is humanity.

And by your definition of humanity is being of human parentage? See there's two things wrong with this "definition". Firstly a definition seeks to define something, it usually does this by refering to other things which are also defined by other things. It is a whole web of knowledge. However, your definition is insular, it refers to the same thing that it is trying to define. Obviously you can't define something by using itself to explain as itself is not defined! Therefore, your definition, is by definition, not a definition. Secondly, it does not explain why we are of more moral significance than an animal as it is the equivilant of saying "Humans are better because their parents are other humans".

See the thing is, you know if you define humans, or humanity properly you can't defend it. Another thing, that I've just thought of, is that to be of human parentage, is that your origin is from a human. Now, you say that humanity deserves moral recognition. Well, a little cell in my hand's origin is me, I am human therefore it is of human parentage thus it is humanity and thus it deserves moral rights.

At 1/3/03 09:55 AM, Slizor wrote:
See the thing is, you know if you define humans, or humanity properly you can't defend it.

if "properly" is according to what you wnat me to say, then, no, i can't define humanity. but if you want me to truly define it, you're just going to call me wrong.

Another thing, that I've just thought of, is that to be of human parentage, is that your origin is from a human. Now, you say that humanity deserves moral recognition. Well, a little cell in my hand's origin is me, I am human therefore it is of human parentage thus it is humanity and thus it deserves moral rights.

wrong. a cell in your hand is not of human parentage. it is a bodily component. it doesn't grow into an intellegent being, or an unintellegent being. it isn't and will never be human.

i'd like to hear your definition of human. it should be interesting to hear your version.

a human is a human because it is born of humans. homo sapien. a creature of a higher intellectual level than anything else of this earth. capable of reason, compassion, true thought, remorse, and other things related to intelect.

a human is a human because it is born of humans. homo sapien. a creature of a higher intellectual level than anything else of this earth. capable of reason, compassion, true thought, remorse, and other things related to intelect.

Compassion, true thought, reason, remorse, intelect.....these are what truely define a human and mark our difference from animals. But, all these things a foetus lacks, it is no different from an animal which can be killed without a second thought. You finally gave me a real definition.

it would not be disasterous to society in any way.

Really? Your basis for this is what? My basis is the whole underground abortion clinic thing. That and people would be pretty damn pissed off, and if you don't think riots would happen, you're probably pretty confused. Oh and as for when you say...

i was in a relationship for 10 months and i didn't have sex with her. besides it's the person's fault for having sex. you can't just have sex and blame it on some primal instinct.

To some people, 10 months is not a long time. I said be it weeks or years, it's different for everyone...besides the point of that, you act like sex is a bad thing. Funny, for someone to believe in a soul I assume you're Christian or something of the sort of monotheistic western religions. You gotta ask yourself, if it's so bad, why did God make it feel so good? To test your restraint? I've heard that excuse before. But if you think about it, every other major sin in christianity's eyes has a negative side effect to it to justify its prohibition. Look at hard drug use, you have the side effects when it's over. Murder, obviously the greif, implications on the lieves of the people that know the man...but Sex is the only thing banned from people's lives by Christianity that isn't at all bad if it's between two knowing, consenting individuals. It may just be me but I think there may be another underlying reason behind Christians wanting Pro Life...just one more reason to force people to wait until they're married to have sex: Fear of parental responsibility.

At 1/3/03 06:34 PM, Slizor wrote:

Compassion, true thought, reason, remorse, intelect.....these are what truely define a human and mark our difference from animals. But, all these things a foetus lacks,

true, but an animal cannot learn these things. an animal cannot grow to feel such things. that is what sets an unborn child apart from an animal. human potential.

At 1/3/03 07:22 PM, Scaletail wrote:

Really? Your basis for this is what? My basis is the whole underground abortion clinic thing. That and people would be pretty damn pissed off, and if you don't think riots would happen, you're probably pretty confused.

possibly so. but underground abortion clinics aren't a necessary effect of the prohibition of abortion. don't you think that abortions ilegality would cause thousands of peolpe to not have abortions? and it's not like many people would get pregnant and have an underground abortion just to defy the rule against it.

you act like sex is a bad thing.

i will never say that sex is a bad thing. if you think i implied that in my arguement, then i'm sorry.

But if you think about it, every other major sin in christianity's eyes has a negative side effect to it to justify its prohibition. Look at hard drug use, you have the side effects when it's over. Murder, obviously the greif, implications on the lieves of the people that know the man...but Sex is the only thing banned from people's lives by Christianity that isn't at all bad if it's between two knowing, consenting individuals. It may just be me but I think there may be another underlying reason behind Christians wanting Pro Life...just one more reason to force people to wait until they're married to have sex: Fear of parental responsibility.

first of all, it isn't so much fear of parental responsibility as much as it is accountability of adolescense.

and sex can have a detrimental effect on people. it changes a relationship, usually for the worse. adding a strong physical eliment to a relationship can detract from the emotional eliment, causing the relationship to stunt its self.

and other things prohibited by most religions can be harmless, can be. smoking weed by a responsible person can be harmless. drinking, drugs, other things like that. one of the reasons they are prohibited is because of the self-detrimental properties of such actions.

At 1/3/03 07:22 PM, Scaletail wrote:

Really? Your basis for this is what? My basis is the whole underground abortion clinic thing. That and people would be pretty damn pissed off, and if you don't think riots would happen, you're probably pretty confused.

possibly so. but underground abortion clinics aren't a necessary effect of the prohibition of abortion. don't you think that abortions ilegality would cause thousands of peolpe to not have abortions? and it's not like many people would get pregnant and have an underground abortion just to defy the rule against it.

you act like sex is a bad thing.

i will never say that sex is a bad thing. if you think i implied that in my arguement, then i'm sorry.

But if you think about it, every other major sin in christianity's eyes has a negative side effect to it to justify its prohibition. Look at hard drug use, you have the side effects when it's over. Murder, obviously the greif, implications on the lieves of the people that know the man...but Sex is the only thing banned from people's lives by Christianity that isn't at all bad if it's between two knowing, consenting individuals. It may just be me but I think there may be another underlying reason behind Christians wanting Pro Life...just one more reason to force people to wait until they're married to have sex: Fear of parental responsibility.

first of all, it isn't so much fear of parental responsibility as much as it is accountability of adolescense.

and sex can have a detrimental effect on people. it changes a relationship, usually for the worse. adding a strong physical eliment to a relationship can detract from the emotional eliment, causing the relationship to stunt its self.

and other things prohibited by most religions can be harmless, can be. smoking weed by a responsible person can be harmless. drinking, drugs, other things like that. one of the reasons they are prohibited is because of the self-detrimental properties of such actions.

sorry about the double post. the window sayd the i didn't fill in all fields. don't ask why, i have no idea.

and sex can have a detrimental effect on people. it changes a relationship, usually for the worse. adding a strong physical eliment to a relationship can detract from the emotional eliment, causing the relationship to stunt its self.

Only if undertaken by the irresponsible, unprepared, or those not yet mature enough to undertake it. For some people it can expand a relationship greatly, adding to already existing bonds.

and other things prohibited by most religions can be harmless, can be. smoking weed by a responsible person can be harmless. drinking, drugs, other things like that. one of the reasons they are prohibited is because of the self-detrimental properties of such actions.

Yep. Very true. Which is why I'm pretty much against doing anything just because a religion says so when you aren't sure it's true. Like acknowledging the existance of a soul.

Until the baby is born, it is an extention of the female that is carrying it.
It's hardly different than a parasitic bug living on her, or a hemmoroid on her ass.
It's a non sentient being, and she carries the full responsibility for it, wether she wants it to live or die.
(Pro-Choice)

The issue is so complicated, its best not to bring it up in a forum (not avoiding it though) that goes far beyond women's choice, and the stakes are much higher Take Roe vs. Wade for instance, the main problem there was, when do you decide if the infant is fully "human", I mean, if you were to abort a near developed entirely infant, it was be considered infanticide. But, what if it was a mere developing egg? How can we deem something like that "unhuman" due to lack of development? THEY SEEM TO HAVE DECIDED ON 3-4 MONTHS OR SO, BUT WHO ARE WE TO SAY?

i pesonally believe as im sure someone else has written in here, that it all comes down to the women. but i believe it also comes down to the ethics of the women. like if she was raped, or she was too old or too health risky, then yea its understandable we dont want the kid to be fucked up n shit. but if the women is more than capable of holding this kid for 9months giving birth and then if she wanted to give it up for adoption then by all means tell the stupid ho no. i had 3 friends that had gotten pregant and all three wanted to get an abortion and then they all decided not to. then they gave birth to that kid and they all kept him/her. people r too raped up in the moment and if they just sat back and thought about whats the most responsible thing to do...im sure we'd all be more responible people.

hoorah, i solute you, very good post, I could not have said it better myself.

In a big country haved trouble with abortion,just like politic newrgounds said.what?i dont know

Abortion is who dont care's baby and kill that a name of life,taht's all.

At 12/2/02 10:56 PM, Bob69187 wrote: I Could not beleve that no one had posted something on this nice and controversial topic. I Say for Pro-Life, but not quite as far as the idiots bombing clinics.

My opinion is that abortion should be allowed. You cannot deny a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body and at first the baby is just a bunch of cells without conscience.