Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/2/06 10:10 AM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 7/1/06 09:32 PM, Mooperty wrote: Even though the fetus resides in the mother, it still has the potential to become a human, and is a living being.

Every time anyone masturbates, their sperm has the potential to become a living being. In order to have a consistant argument, you need to accept that masturabtion is wrong in the same way abortion is.

No, sperm is only genetic material. When a human is concieved, it forms a DNA code that will NEVER be seen again, is unique in every way, unless it were to be cloned or have a twin. Sperm doesn't have the potential to become a human unless it swaps chromosomes with an egg, which is again, conception.

Plants and animals are also living beings. Yet you eat them. In order to have a consistant argument, you also need to accept that you can no longer eat meat or plant products and derivatives.

We aren't discussing plants and animals, we're discussing humans. We don't (generally) cannabalize and eat other humans, now do we? Is it not morally wrong to kill another human? If so, why is it not when aborting a fetus?

Your argument is baseless, and appeals to the lowest common denominator of intellect.

I'm sorry if I think murder is wrong, oh woe is me.

At 7/2/06 11:09 AM, Mooperty wrote: We aren't discussing plants and animals, we're discussing humans. We don't (generally) cannabalize and eat other humans, now do we? Is it not morally wrong to kill another human? If so, why is it not when aborting a fetus?

Because until a fetus has reached a certain state of development, it can't be considered a human being.

At 7/2/06 11:02 AM, arz756 wrote:

At 7/2/06 10:20 AM, EtovaKala wrote: I laugh at these pro-lifers. Mainly because some of them also believe in capitol punishment.

Abortion and Capital Punishment are completely different. One is a punishment for a crime caused by a person who choose to do something horrible, while abortion is just a person who chooses that they do not desire their potential child, and decides to terminate it.

This wasn't an analogy. The point was that they claim to be "pro-life", while at the same time they encourage the extermination of human life. And don't try to tell me that there haven't been innocent people executed as murderers.

Hmm, heres a thought. What is worse, being forced to have a baby and not being allowed to abort it or being forced to have an abortion if you have more kids than the government wants?(it happens in China)

At 7/2/06 11:37 AM, EtovaKala wrote:

At 7/2/06 11:09 AM, Mooperty wrote: We aren't discussing plants and animals, we're discussing humans. We don't (generally) cannabalize and eat other humans, now do we? Is it not morally wrong to kill another human? If so, why is it not when aborting a fetus?

Because until a fetus has reached a certain state of development, it can't be considered a human being.

Bullshit. If it is growing inside the mother, is developing human features, and was concieved by two humans, I'd say it's a human. Fetal, perhaps, but still human.

I'm pro life.

Saying a baby is part of the woman is non sense. That is a human being, and murder is murder.

I find it amazing the hypocrisy in this modern age. A woman who has an abortion is not seen as a murderer, yet if someone were to injure and kill the embrio, he/she is convicted for murder.

At 7/2/06 12:19 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: I'm pro life.

Saying a baby is part of the woman is non sense. That is a human being, and murder is murder.

I find it amazing the hypocrisy in this modern age. A woman who has an abortion is not seen as a murderer, yet if someone were to injure and kill the embrio, he/she is convicted for murder.

That's exactly what I said in a different abortion thread.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, it counts as a double homicide, while an abortion isn't considered a crime at all.

At 7/1/06 12:25 PM, Freemind wrote: I am personally pro-life but I don't think it is my place to force what I consider to be moral on other people.

That doesn't make you pro-life, that makes you pro-choice and anti-abortion.

The problem with this debate is that people decided to use loaded terms in order to demonize the other side by trying to separate their labels from the issue and latch them onto a higher cause.

At 7/2/06 12:26 PM, Mooperty wrote:

At 7/2/06 12:19 PM, Cajunspirit wrote: I'm pro life.

Saying a baby is part of the woman is non sense. That is a human being, and murder is murder.

I find it amazing the hypocrisy in this modern age. A woman who has an abortion is not seen as a murderer, yet if someone were to injure and kill the embrio, he/she is convicted for murder.

That's exactly what I said in a different abortion thread.

If a pregnant woman is murdered, it counts as a double homicide, while an abortion isn't considered a crime at all.

Two birds with one stone, I guess. In order for a life to be considered human in the sense we know it, it has to have an identity. Now, who, besides the mother, can possibly give a fetus an identity?

To the "double homicide" statement. Yes, it's considered a double homicide because, as long as the mother is intending on having the baby (giving it a familial identity), it is considered a human life. Now, until the baby has seen and physically other things, the mother retains the right to revoke this given identity.

A baby doesn't develop a sense of identity until it starts breathing and experiences something outside of the womb for the first time. Only then is it absolutely illegal for a mother to kill her child (which is a child by that time and not a physical dependent)

At 7/1/06 05:56 PM, Freemind wrote:

At 7/1/06 02:13 PM, Thespus wrote:

At 7/1/06 12:25 PM, Freemind wrote: I am personally pro-life but I don't think it is my place to force what I consider to be moral on other people.

So, in essence, you're pro choice?

I dunno, I guess you could view it either way. I just wish people would take responsibilty for the shit they do, thats it.

I totally agree with you freemind im agianst abortion but its not my choice if a woman wants a abortion or not.

Interesting. So, how are you against abortion if women have the right to choose? Do you mean that you wouldn't have an abortion (if a woman) despite the fact that you believe others have the right to do as they will?

At 7/2/06 11:39 AM, EtovaKala wrote: The point was that they claim to be "pro-life", while at the same time they encourage the extermination of human life.

And his response was to the effect of "The guy on death row did something to warrant being there, the aborted fetus now lying in a bag of medical waste didn't do anything to warrant being there." If you still don't understand what he was trying to get at, you're a moron.

And don't try to tell me that there haven't been innocent people executed as murderers.

I'm not going to say there hasn't been, but I sincerely doubt it's as widespread as you like to think it is.

At 7/2/06 03:52 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: Interesting. So, how are you against abortion if women have the right to choose? Do you mean that you wouldn't have an abortion (if a woman) despite the fact that you believe others have the right to do as they will?

well im not going up to a woman and say you can't have an abortion (unless its my wife) because its their life i just hope that they regret killing a innocent baby and yes it is a person thats alive because a thing that lives and eats and breathes and has eyes,arms,legs and a mouth is alive

At 7/2/06 04:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/2/06 11:39 AM, EtovaKala wrote: The point was that they claim to be "pro-life", while at the same time they encourage the extermination of human life.

And his response was to the effect of "The guy on death row did something to warrant being there, the aborted fetus now lying in a bag of medical waste didn't do anything to warrant being there." If you still don't understand what he was trying to get at, you're a moron.

And don't try to tell me that there haven't been innocent people executed as murderers.

I'm not going to say there hasn't been, but I sincerely doubt it's as widespread as you like to think it is.

I did get his point. I just don't see how willingly and knowingly killing a person makes them any better than the person who sits in the chair? I don't see why people who are in favor of destroying life should be able to dictate when life isn't allowed to be taken away.

If they say that a murderer can be considered inhuman for his actions, I don't see their point about abortions as destroying 'life to be'. If you can kill a person who by your view is not human, why can't you just put out something that isn't yet human?

The thing is while a foetus can be classed as a human it isn't a problem of what is or what isn't a human. The problem is to do with person... When do you class a human as a person?

At 7/2/06 03:04 PM, Thespus wrote:

Two birds with one stone, I guess. In order for a life to be considered human in the sense we know it, it has to have an identity. Now, who, besides the mother, can possibly give a fetus an identity?

It's own unique genetic code that will never again be seen by the human race.

To the "double homicide" statement. Yes, it's considered a double homicide because, as long as the mother is intending on having the baby (giving it a familial identity), it is considered a human life. Now, until the baby has seen and physically other things, the mother retains the right to revoke this given identity.

It's still in the womb though. Many people, including myself, identify that the fetus is a human being. If a fetus happens to be killed inadvertantly by a murderer, then according to pro-choicers, it is "incapable of feeling pain or sense", therefore, by their argument, the fetus is not human yet and should not even be considered for murder.

And as far as intending to have the fetus born, what about relatives and siblings who disagree with the mother on her choice for abortion, but she goes ahead and aborts it anyway?

A baby doesn't develop a sense of identity until it starts breathing and experiences something outside of the womb for the first time. Only then is it absolutely illegal for a mother to kill her child (which is a child by that time and not a physical dependent)

Like I said, unique genetic code unlike any other. I'd say it has it's own identity, regardless if the fetus can think or not. It may be leeching off of the mother, but it is still functioning and growing.

I'm not a woman but you you shouldn't get knocked up if you don't know the consequences.

At 7/2/06 04:11 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 7/2/06 11:39 AM, EtovaKala wrote: The point was that they claim to be "pro-life", while at the same time they encourage the extermination of human life.

And his response was to the effect of "The guy on death row did something to warrant being there, the aborted fetus now lying in a bag of medical waste didn't do anything to warrant being there." If you still don't understand what he was trying to get at, you're a moron.

How do you know? What about reincarnation? What about a world that has

NO VACANCY!

At 7/2/06 11:55 PM, tysonwritesel wrote: I'm not a woman but you you shouldn't get knocked up if you don't know the consequences.

Im both pro-life and pro-choice. Abortions should be legal but it should be the last thing you consider if u r pregnant and dont want the baby. You should, if at all possible, have the baby and just give it up to adoption.

To the above mentioned quote. I'm not a woman either but u have to remember that sometimes a woman doesnt have a choice. I want to make this clear I DO NOT LIKE JOHN KERRY but he did have a good abortion stand. He brought up this question and i agree with him. What if a 15-16 year old girl was raped by her father and became pregnent?(im not trying to be disgusting) Wat if a woman was raped by anyone and became pregnant? So dont tell a woman not to get "knocked up" if they know the consequences because they dont nessisarily have the choice.

At 7/2/06 12:31 PM, Elfer wrote: The problem with this debate is that people decided to use loaded terms in order to demonize the other side by trying to separate their labels from the issue and latch them onto a higher cause.

I've always thought the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were just stupid.
Everyone is pro-chioce, as anyone who wasn't would've had to choose otherwise, thus making them in favor of choice anyway.
And "pro-life" is almost as bad. Clearly, anyone who has the slimmest moral compuntion is pro-life. The term is just redundant.

Personally, I'm vastly in favor of both life and choice, but I am against the majority of abortions on the grounds that the issue would have been better solved with a condom.

At 7/2/06 11:45 AM, White_hole wrote:

:being forced to have an abortion if you have more kids than the government wants?(it happens in China)

The goverment aren't being cruel, it's called birth control look at the population in china, there's no wonder the goverment only want them to have 1 baby. To dense population means sapping more child benefits and everything being more expensive because of demand.

At 7/4/06 07:03 AM, natwel wrote:

At 7/2/06 11:45 AM, White_hole wrote: being forced to have an abortion if you have more kids than the government wants?(it happens in China)

The goverment aren't being cruel, it's called birth control look at the population in china, there's no wonder the goverment only want them to have 1 baby. To dense population means sapping more child benefits and everything being more expensive because of demand.

I dont agree, this forced policy could have very bad effects on there econemy. For one there will be a shortage of labour as their will not be many young people to take up the more labour intensive jobs(some areas in china are actually recording a lack of labour already), another is that I am confused that the government wants its population to actually drop, I would have supposed that it just wanted to keep it stable as they have enough land to support the population already, so why would they want it to go down? Lastley I think that you are forgetting that there are serious mental repercuissions on the family who have had forced abortions.

At 7/4/06 02:01 PM, White_hole wrote: I dont agree, this forced policy could have very bad effects on there econemy.

First, you are making the claim that YOU know more about economics than the entire government of China. I find this hard to believe.

Pro choice.

A fetus is just a parasite until its born

At 7/4/06 02:26 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote:

At 7/4/06 02:01 PM, White_hole wrote: I dont agree, this forced policy could have very bad effects on there econemy.

First, you are making the claim that YOU know more about economics than the entire government of China. I find this hard to believe.

I just think they are short-sighted.

At 7/4/06 02:01 PM, White_hole wrote: Lastley I think that you are forgetting that there are serious mental repercuissions on the family who have had forced abortions.

Since when has this policy been forced? I thought it was just a general government recommendation that a lot of people followed.

At 7/4/06 03:52 PM, Elfer wrote:

Since when has this policy been forced? I thought it was just a general government recommendation that a lot of people followed.

Nope, I saw it in a time magazine, government workers force many pregnent women to have a termination.

you can! have two children in china...if your first born is a girl they will let you have another try,after that they get their tubes tied

& the reason they do is is because the population is out of control,sorry white but you don't know jack shit...it's a very poor country,there was a terrible famine in China for years which they are just getting out of. even so people work like slaves for very little money,why do you think chinese eat all these things like rats,scorpions,dogs...basically anything they get their hands on,even humans were once eaten. some families even sold their children to butchers. maybe you should have a read about the history of China

& i actually agree with their government,population should be controlled,the poorer you are or the less you can provide for your family the less children you should have

Perhaps we should just go back to the origanal discussion as I dont know squat.

At 7/2/06 06:19 PM, Mooperty wrote: Like I said, unique genetic code unlike any other. I'd say it has it's own identity, regardless if the fetus can think or not. It may be leeching off of the mother, but it is still functioning and growing.

I DISAGREE.
What your saying is that if a rape concieved fetus is aborted it's morally wrong because the rapist has created a unique strand of d.n.a, and that this d.n.a counts as a fully qualified human being. That just does'nt sound right to me.

We all have our own opinions as to where a fetus becomes a human, but all Im saying is that everyone should have the right to choose because otherwise we'll just end up with a law that the right wing will use to force their opinions on other's. and if we can't all agree as to what makes a human a human then that's all your doing.
and I don't know about you, but I say it takes alot more than d.n.a to make a person...