Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/6/03 10:39 PM, EvilBread wrote:

At 3/6/03 10:38 PM, EvilBread wrote:

but yes, I do agree that if you are considering abortion you shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

Still, all of these horny 15 year olds going off and humping in the back of El Caminos. So much for being responsible and saving us from these anti-abortion people. I don't understand anti-abortionists. They BLOW UP buildings to PREVENT murder!

Sorry, it's just been on my mind a lot lately.

Still, all of these horny 15 year olds going off and humping in the back of El Caminos. So much for being responsible and saving us from these anti-abortion people. I don't understand anti-abortionists. They BLOW UP buildings to PREVENT murder!

Sorry, it's just been on my mind a lot lately.

yep, people figure it this way I suppose, if it isn't concious or cannot communicate with us, what does it matter if it dies? same goes for animals and abortion...not sounding like anti-abortion, and yes I know this theory is really "off the wall" but hey, ya never know.

It's not that off the wall. I think someone during a rally for abortion said something vaguely like it.

At 3/6/03 10:47 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: I don't understand anti-abortionists. They BLOW UP buildings to PREVENT murder!

I consider myself pro-life, but you're right. Anyone who bombs an abortion clinic is a hypocrite.

At 2/27/03 12:38 AM, kittie_cross wrote: 1) Yes or no.. why or why not?

2) Is it really murder?

3) Should it be illegal?

1) Yes. While many people do choose to abort a fetus because they are not mentally or financially ready to care for a child there are other reasons to use it such as in the cases of rape, underage pregnancy, complications during birth that are lethal to the mother, severe handicaps (found through genetic testing) of the fetus.

2) It depends on the time period of the abortion. In the third trimester, the fetus is definatly human. Before that, it is a bundle of cells, a 'potential human'.

3) No. The government cannot dictate what women do to their bodies especially since this entire 'issue' is based on the personal perception of what makes a fetus a human.

I feel that abortion should not be illegal. I hate to use this analogy but its kinda like the movie alien, I doubt anyone would say that it would be wrong to get an abortion if you were aborting the fetus of a carnal, acid blooded, sharp toothed extraterrestrial, but if that alien in that womans stomach was your baby you wouldnt want it to get aborted. There should be some restrictions on abortion though, like no third trimester abortions and repeat aborters, unless the woman has some sort of genetic disability or other special circumstances.

Okay, so you're FOR one abortion, but if the thing happens again, she's told to go packing somewhere else? If it's an abortion, there should be no limits on it.

Thank you

by multiple abortions i meant many, and i also said in certain cases it would be excused like when a women is raped or a genetic disability

So, what? When she was born, she'd be given a punch ticket for a baker's dozen abortions, and when she's out, she's screwed?
That makes a lot of sense.

so you appose the three strikes your out policy

No, not at all.
I oppose it.

Is the morning after pill abortion?

No the m-a pill isn't. It just prevents the formation of an indivudual in the nick of time.

what the difference between a 10 celled baby and a 1000 baby, in other words when does the baby become unabortable if indeed you are against abortion.

Warning, I may put personal beliefs here
I believe that the moment that the egg and the sperm unite, God sends a soul to that body. If one can prove me wrong, then I will accept early abortions. And yes, I mean that sincerely, and not sarcastically.

so a single celled human has a soul but a single celled bacterium doesnt?

it never mentions bacteria or protozoa in the bible so he very well could have made them in his image. In the bible god can take any form so what is his image?

At 3/11/03 11:47 PM, Newgrundling wrote:

At 3/11/03 11:45 PM, jimsween wrote: so a single celled human has a soul but a single celled bacterium doesnt?

"God didn't make bacteria in his own image"

I agree, I'm not a believer in souls or an afterlife... I do believe, however, in God.

.
Once again, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Jimsween,
Nowhere in the Bible did God give stewardship of the planet to any other organism; just to humans.

you must believe in genesis then, i dont so we could possibly agree on that

if i have to though. dogmatic law, jesus said to peter, "what you hold true on earth i shall hold true in heaven." which basically means we make the laws to get into heaven, whatever we feel are the rules for an acceptable society are the rules to get into heaven.

At 3/11/03 11:59 PM, Newgrundling wrote:

At 3/11/03 11:50 PM, jimsween wrote: it never mentions bacteria or protozoa in the bible so he very well could have made them in his image. In the bible god can take any form so what is his image?

Well if you're talking about the Bible, I believe that Man is God's image.

Well of course man is in god's image! We're the dominant race! So full of arrogance that we think that we couldn't possibly be any less than the most superior race in the universe (or multiverse, depending on your views on THAT subject). I don't even see the point of the entire "inject a soul" debate. It's science. The sperm fertilizes, and a series of chemical reactions divides cells and specializes stem-cells until it forms the fetus.

Bottom line: It's legal in my eyes until the baby pops out of mommy and is hit in the head with a cartoon-esque black mallet. Then it's murder.

At 3/12/03 12:08 AM, jimsween wrote: if i have to though. dogmatic law, jesus said to peter, "what you hold true on earth i shall hold true in heaven." which basically means we make the laws to get into heaven, whatever we feel are the rules for an acceptable society are the rules to get into heaven.

You've taken that verse (Mathew 16:19) heavily out of context.

Below are the verses (in bold) that lead up to the verse you mentioned.

Mathew 16:13-18
...He asked His disiples, saying "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"

Jesus said Peter was blessed. (Peter knows what's going on) and that what Peter holds true on earth will be in Heaven and all that, not what mankind holds true.

I am pro-life and I possess no power that can change anyone's mind.

When a homeless man dies, it's ok as long as nobody cared about him right?

Better yet, why don't we kill all the homeless people that make no effort to improve their situations. Sure, they're people, but they're parasites, living off the rest of us. They choose they're condition.

We should sooner kill the ones that have made a choice to throw away their lives, than the ones that haven't had the chance to make that choice.

The Senate has approved a ban on partial-birth abortions.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/ne...3/ts_nm/congress_abortion_dc_9

Maybe we can get some debate jump-started here...

At 3/13/03 03:07 AM, stampedrat wrote: When a homeless man dies, it's ok as long as nobody cared about him right?

Better yet, why don't we kill all the homeless people that make no effort to improve their situations. Sure, they're people, but they're parasites, living off the rest of us. They choose they're condition.

We should sooner kill the ones that have made a choice to throw away their lives, than the ones that haven't had the chance to make that choice.

Ooh... very interesting comprison, bro. I like the way you think. And I'm happy to see that I"m not the only pro-life supporter here! ^_^

No, a homeless man has as much rights as one with a home.
A home does not give a person rights.
Wether or not they are a living human does, however. You wouldn't give the right to free speech to a dead man, would you? Or a cat?
They're not human, they don't get it.
Just like a fetus. Or an embryo. Or a blastocyst. They're as human as a dead corpse. They have not yet reached the state of humanity, and, though they doubtless will, they recieve no rights until they do.

Well stated, Ted. Until you have conscious reasoning and the ability to not be a parasite to the mother, you gain no rights. Until you come out, they can stick a blender up mom and turn you into soup.

At 3/21/03 08:49 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: Well stated, Ted. Until you have conscious reasoning and the ability to not be a parasite to the mother, you gain no rights. Until you come out, they can stick a blender up mom and turn you into soup.

So, this would apply to a patient in a coma, too, right? You wouldn't feel bad about killing them, would you? They have no conscious reasoning abilities, they are a "parasite" living off of life support and the money of others, so they have no rights then if I follow your reasoning. Why don't we just kill all of them and save a lot of money?

So... you're saying we should never take coma patients off life support.

At 3/21/03 07:46 PM, jimsween wrote: So... you're saying we should never take coma patients off life support.

No. It's called an analogy.